Slashdot Mirror

I was looking for someone here to pick up on the effect of copyright registration. The following is blatantly lifted from the U.S. Copyright Office synopsis on the subject (since no one bothers to RTFL anyway, right?):

Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

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

If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies.

I'll make no further comment as we all can read.

Copyright registration is a legal formality. It allows the holder to pursue a copyright infringement claim in US courts. If a copyright is registered within 90 days of publication, or prior to an alleged infringement, the holder is eligible for an additional award of legal fees.
Source

That is correct. "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (taken from the Library of Congress website). The whole "Copyright 2003 Michael Gibson" thing is referred to as a "notice of copyright" and is now optional (see another page on the LOC website). Take note of the terminology... it's not called "deed of copyright," "contract of copyright," it's called notice of copyright, as in "This is already the state of things, but I am putting this notice here to appraise you of that fact."

That is correct. "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." (taken from the Library of Congress website). The whole "Copyright 2003 Michael Gibson" thing is referred to as a "notice of copyright" and is now optional (see another page on the LOC website). Take note of the terminology... it's not called "deed of copyright," "contract of copyright," it's called notice of copyright, as in "This is already the state of things, but I am putting this notice here to appraise you of that fact."

Sorry. That's:

U.S. Copyright Office

There's a difference between LJ, the codebase, and LJ.com, the site. LJ.com is owned by a for-profit business called Danga Interactive, Inc.. LJ also has a community to discuss how to make money from LJ.

(I have no connection with LJ other than keeping a journal there-- the above is mostly just stuff I found with Google.)

I just prefer the address for webcast rules to be a hot-link:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#114

Kucinich on webcasting.

Letter to Copyright Office, the last page has a good summary. You could say he's probably not a big fan of the RIAA or DMCA.

I think you spend a little too much time listening to RMS. You don't copyright information. That is not possible. It is actually very clearly state on the Copyright website -

You cannot copyright..."Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship."

You can copyright your tangible analysis of information as long as it contains thoughts and ideas that are your own.

As for the money issue, copyright was created entirely with the idea of providing a living for people who create works of art and science.

Finally, I have created many works of art. I even consider this post to be a work of art. I find it very unlikely, however, that somebody in this universe is creating the same exact thing at the same exact time.

Can you substantiate this claim? It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.

I agree, but that's basically what statutory licensing is all about.

Anyway, here is the proof you asked for. It's in section 114(b)(2) of the Copyright Code.

(2) Statutory licensing of certain transmissions. -- The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a subscription digital audio transmission not exempt under paragraph (1), an eligible nonsubscription transmission, or a transmission not exempt under paragraph (1) that is made by a preexisting satellite digital audio radio service shall be subject to statutory licensing...

Link

However, as far as I can tell, if the webcaster takes the time to negotiate licenses with individual copyright holders they can avoid these statutory royalties under Section 112(e)(5):

(5) License agreements voluntarily negotiated at any time between 1 or more copyright owners of sound recordings and 1 or more transmitting organizations entitled to obtain a statutory license under this subsection shall be given effect in lieu of any determination by a copyright arbitration royalty panel or decision by the Librarian of Congress.

Link

Can you substantiate this claim? It seems that it would be patently illegal to ask for payment to play music that the RIAA members dont have copyright on.

I agree, but that's basically what statutory licensing is all about.

Anyway, here is the proof you asked for. It's in section 114(b)(2) of the Copyright Code.

(2) Statutory licensing of certain transmissions. -- The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a subscription digital audio transmission not exempt under paragraph (1), an eligible nonsubscription transmission, or a transmission not exempt under paragraph (1) that is made by a preexisting satellite digital audio radio service shall be subject to statutory licensing...

Link

However, as far as I can tell, if the webcaster takes the time to negotiate licenses with individual copyright holders they can avoid these statutory royalties under Section 112(e)(5):

(5) License agreements voluntarily negotiated at any time between 1 or more copyright owners of sound recordings and 1 or more transmitting organizations entitled to obtain a statutory license under this subsection shall be given effect in lieu of any determination by a copyright arbitration royalty panel or decision by the Librarian of Congress.

Link

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

You will have to decide for yourself, since I am not a lawyer: check section 110 part 5.

Good point, much better than listening to something before each track :) Anyway this document would provide any more answers about this question: Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media It also explains though "Nothing in this chapter requires any person engaged in the importation or manufacture of digital musical recordings to encode any such digital musical recording with respect to its copyright status" You just can't tag inaccurate copyright information... but yeah, when you make the MP3 files in the first place you should notice the copyright on the back of the cd case ;)

"The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law" Plus when you pop in your music CD would you want to listen to a copyright notice before every song? I think not.

Real lawyers probably would have told you about Section 117 (a) of US copyright law. Part 1 of that section specifically deals with the legal logic that the in-memory copy created by the computer when you execute a given program requires a license from the publisher.

Then again, I'm not a real lawyer, so what do I know?

This (the idea that the in-memory copy of a program made as an ordinary and essential step in using the program constitutes an action prohibited under copyright law unless you agree to a license from the publisher) is a seriously harmful meme, and as long as people accept it as true companies will be able to put any language they want in their EULA's and everyone will just shrug and say "well, that's the way it goes."

The thing is, this hasn't been true at the very least since 1987, and whether or not it was true before then is something that was never completely settled. (There was some thinking that the courts were leaning towards expanding fair use to cover this)

Barring the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, you are not a criminal if you use a copy of a program lawfully obtained without agreeing to a license from the publisher. (Ever notice how the Gnu GPL very specifically does not impose any restrictions on use at all, but only on copying and redistribution? This is one of the reasons.)

Also, ever notice how most EULAs gratiously let you make a backup copy? You were already allowed to do that, before you agreed to the EULA.

The relevant piece of US law is in the copyright code, section 117 (a). It's readable online.

The issue is, ancient folklore is in the public domain, but the Harry Potter and Tolkien series are not in the public domain. Considering the ongoing extensions to copyright laws that have been going on over the past century, and more notably with the 'Sonny Bono' law in recent years, these works may never become public domain anyway.

Copyright is a legal monopoly, plain and simple (as are patents, as well). Copyright law as set down by the U.S. Government states, among other things:

102 states:
(b) 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.

So, you can't copyright an idea (that is what patents are for) - just a 'work' which may contain many ideas, procedures, processes etc... A foot in the door for the the flying double bass.

103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works, states:
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

This is a slippery one to understand. Basically, I think this means a derivative work can fall under copyright...(maybe a lawyer could comment on this one?)

106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity, states:
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. - Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art -

(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113(d), shall have the right -

(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and

(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.

(Section 113(d) deals with destruction of works of art on buildings - responsibilities for builders, and limitations on what an artist can demand)

So, I would imagine JK Rowling and/or her publisher are going after these derivative works under 106A subsection (A).

>[downloading music from Kazaa that's on a CD that I own is but can't be bothered looking for is] legal, fair use. (Isn't it?)

Decide for yourself.

>>downloading music that does not belong to you is illegal. Period.
>No it isn't. What law does this violate?

Title 17, 501 "(a) 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) [...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be" where Title 17, 106 (1) is "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords".

Sorry, what was your argument again?

>>downloading music that does not belong to you is illegal. Period.
>No it isn't. What law does this violate?

Title 17, 501 "(a) 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) [...] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be" where Title 17, 106 (1) is "reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords".

Sorry, what was your argument again?

you are high

there is no such thing as a natural copyright

copyright must be registered

See US Copyright Law in US Code Title 17, Section 501, Part a, available here, "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) [which grant the author/owner sole right to reproduce, distribute, display publicly, etc]...is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be."

See also Section 107, regarding fair use, "...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Just interesting to note, since another misconception someone posted here was that downloading pirated music is fair use. No, it is not.

Let's go over this again. Repeat after me:
"Copyright infringement is NOT stealing"
"Copyright infringement is NOT stealing"
Make sure you say NOT really loud. Copyright infringment is only that, copyright infringement.

In fact, if you will search the complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law, you will see, throughout all the chapters, amendments AND appendicies, the words steal nor stealing DO NOT APPEAR A SINGLE TIME.

Yes, downloading copyrighted materials is illegal, but it is NOT STEALING. There is an entirely different law that applies to stealing. If you would like to go over the US Copyright Law, all 290 pages of it are available in PDF and HTML form here

4. Stop being taken in by the RIAA FUD-O-MATIC

In certain instances, copyright infringement can be a criminal offense, with jail time. I guess that qualifies as a correction.

See section 106 and the definitions at the beginning of this page

Marvel's lawyers don't have a leg to stand on!!!

I took a look at the full context of the letter from Marvel's lawyers to the admin of the Skin site. Just for kicks, I looked up the full context of the '1976 Copyright Law' and the Federal 'Lanham Act'.

What I found was that Marvel's lawyers are totally bluffing and don't have a case.

There are specific sections of both of these laws that totally protect 'The Skindex' and prevent Marvel's lawyers from ever filing a lawsuit.

Here's the info that I found:

1976 Copyright Act

Most of the Act focuses specificaly on or implies works of Music, Movies, Plays, Computer Programs, or even Boat plans. Nowhere in this Act is there any sort of law governing the Skins.

Or so I though.

Buried in Section 109 Sub-Section (b)(1)(B)(i and ii) of this code (Page 22 of the PDF near the bottom) are two exceptions that place Limitations on the 'Exclusive Rights' Marvel is alleging Mr. Benson is infringing on:

(B) This subsection does not apply toâ"

(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or

(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

Other than that there is not a single word in this Act that Marvel can use against this Skin site.

Lanham Act

This is a REALLY easy one. Since 'The Skindex' is a 'not for profit' site they are protected from a lawsuit under 15 U.S.C. Â1125 of The Lanham Act. Section (C)(4)(A-C) States (Specifically C-4-B):

(4) The following shall not be actionable under this section:

(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.

(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

These guys need to hire a lawyer, fast and tell Marvel where to go!

Dolemite
___________________________________

Actually, what the HUs technically mean, is someone who has registered their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. It costs $30 (literary works) and takes effect when they receive their copies for deposit, the (paper) form and US$30.

But yes, the cynical parent is right in practical terms - entities that have purchased legislation.

To be ulitmately cynical you write something, make a funny picture or Flash animation that gets passed around the Internet. Keep an eye out for a copy leaving your target's organization. File notice that you intend to penetrate their security to search for copies of your (registered) copyrighted works [1]. Hack their systems. Destroy anything with a copy of your creation on it with complete impunity. Do not neglect mail servers and the backup servers (a copy is a copy).

For bonus points go through the outbound logs, Sent Items folders and address books to identify additional targets. [2]

Disclaimer: Some steps expressed as trivialities may, in fact, be epic undertakings in their own right [3].

[1] This bill didn't actually pass, but I reserve the right in all circumstances to be more hypothetical than strictly necessary.

[2] This last is nothing a virus with access to Windows Scripting Host couldn't do to an Outlook user. If DRM software to do this already exists (in, say, Windows 2005) then you have a legitimate reason to use it - or to reverse engineer it for "interoperability".

[3] There's that word again.

Actually, what the HUs technically mean, is someone who has registered their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office. It costs $30 (literary works) and takes effect when they receive their copies for deposit, the (paper) form and US$30.

But yes, the cynical parent is right in practical terms - entities that have purchased legislation.

To be ulitmately cynical you write something, make a funny picture or Flash animation that gets passed around the Internet. Keep an eye out for a copy leaving your target's organization. File notice that you intend to penetrate their security to search for copies of your (registered) copyrighted works [1]. Hack their systems. Destroy anything with a copy of your creation on it with complete impunity. Do not neglect mail servers and the backup servers (a copy is a copy).

For bonus points go through the outbound logs, Sent Items folders and address books to identify additional targets. [2]

Disclaimer: Some steps expressed as trivialities may, in fact, be epic undertakings in their own right [3].

[1] This bill didn't actually pass, but I reserve the right in all circumstances to be more hypothetical than strictly necessary.

[2] This last is nothing a virus with access to Windows Scripting Host couldn't do to an Outlook user. If DRM software to do this already exists (in, say, Windows 2005) then you have a legitimate reason to use it - or to reverse engineer it for "interoperability".

[3] There's that word again.

Send would translate into "give", if you really want to use a different word. Steal is the word for "take away".

If a government has granted a limited monopoly to the author of a vector of bits, then reproducing and "giving" the bits to another party may constitute "taking away" from the author.

ObTopic: Likewise, if a government has granted a limited monopoly to the inventor of a method of audio analysis and data reduction, then performing such a method may constitute "taking away" from the inventor. That's why binaries of free MP3 and AAC encoders cannot be distributed openly in the United States, Germany, Japan, and other countries where Fraunhofer holds such a monopoly.

Compiling to a known-published binary is the only way to verify.

This sounds like a digital update to the old "stick it in an envelope and mail it to yourself" idea.

This is why the Copyright Office offers the service of copyright registration. The owner of the copyright sends a copy of the work to the US Copyright Office with an application and a $30 fee. At a later date, the copyright owner can get back a certified copy, where the Copyright Office certifies "this registrant filed these bytes on this date".

Obtaining Access to and Copies of Copyright Office Records and Deposits

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 release on 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 In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or an action instituted under section 411(b), no award of statutory damages or of attorney'

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 release on 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 In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A(a) or an action instituted under section 411(b), no award of statutory damages or of attorney'

The Copyright Office. In particular, works not eligible for protection:

• Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents
• Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

The news.com.com article claims:

However, for SCO to bring copyright-based lawsuits against Linux users, SCO would have to show that the copyright transfers have been registered at the U.S. Copyright Office, Ferrell said.

I'm not sure if that means by not recording the transfers SCO's prevented themselves from suing, or if it just means they'd need to get them recorded before they'd be able to sue, but they don't seem to be recorded.

The only copyrights that Norvell assigned to anybody that got recorded are "ConvertPerfect 2.0 for DOS & 153 other titles" to Corel and "Novell Internet caching system 1.0 & 2 other titles" to Volera. (From COHS, the Copyright Office's copyright ownership document database.)

the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.

No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.

How does the proposed amendment to the copyright law possibly outweight the advantages we currently possess? It tries to solve one problem, which is, "How do we offset the cost to proactively obtain original works for the Public Domain?" You do it by requiring a proactive registration system?

The Big Record Companies have how many different recordings under their control? By how many artists?

$1 per recording every 5 years. I think that that would stack up to a large amount of money.

Lets look at some numbers: This page has a list of the number of copyright registrations for every year from 1790 to 2002. It lists the total number of copyrights out there as being 30,253,812.

In 2002 there were 521,041 new registered copyrights. That means that in 50 years, $521,041 would have to be paid to the copyright office to maintain those copyrights for another 5 years. Another look at the data shows that right now there are 9,213,707 registered works that are 50 years old or older. That means that $9,213,707 would have to be paid to the copyright office to maintain those works.

Now, realizing that not every work is owned by a BIG CORPORATION(tm) that is still not a small chunk of change and will ultimately result in more and more items entering public domain, or more money going to the government...(or more money being charged for copyrighted works simply to maintain this cost, copyright tax).

I don't know that this solves anything, but I like the attempt.

And how do you know this without access to the transfer agreement (which I don't believe has been made public)? If you are relying on Copyright Office records, your reliance is misplaced. Recordation of assignment of copyrights by the Copyright Office is not mandatory on either the assignor or the assignee. See, generally, this. IOW, the assignment of ownership rights in a copyrighted work can be perfectly valid and legally binding without the assignment being recorded by the Copyright Office (and thus reflected in their records). Absent seeing the actual transfer agreement between Novell and SCO, one cannot make a definitive statement as to ownership.

can you copyright such a thing as a story?

If you really don't know the answer to that question, then you should probably do a little more light reading and little less commenting on Slashdot. Just a thought. :)

From what I understand (corrections invited) downloading the music isn't the illegal part (assuming you have the CD)

Well, in the US, that is technically illegal. Only the copyright holder can authorize someone to duplicate his content. The fact that you've purchased one copy on CD doesn't permit you to make more.

Many people claim that fair use entitles you to make a backup copy of a CD, and prehaps the downloaded materials could be considered such a copy (although MP3 files are lossy-compressed, and would be a poor way to recreate the original CD).

The government's description of fair use, however, mentions nothing about backup copies, although both backups and time/format shifting have seemed acceptable recently.

No, copyright law is to protect covered works from being looted by someone other than the copyright holder. Why should someone spend time and effort writing a song/book/play/etc... and not expect payment for the work that went into said work.

I wouldn't want you to be making money off of something that I worked hard. You don't have the right to take my money that I could earn, unless we were to come to some sort of financial agreement that would be fair to both you and me.

Of course, if you could point out a place where I could find information to the contrary, please post it.

Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government,
but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred
to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.

"3.4.3.2. Copyrights - Software created solely by an officer or employee of the U. S. Government as part
of that person's official duties is a work of the U. S. Government. Copyright protection is not currently
available in the United States for a work of the U. S. Government. However, the Government can claim
foreign copyrights for software created by its employees and can receive and hold copyrights transferred
to it by assignment.

Here we go


Publications Incorporating U. S. Government Works

Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection. For works published on and after March 1, 1989, the previous notice requirement for works consisting primarily of one or more U. S. Government works has been eliminated. However, use of a notice on such a work will defeat a claim of innocent infringement as previously described provided the notice also includes a statement that identifies either those portions of the work in which copyright is claimed or those portions that constitute U. S. Government material.

Example: © 2002 Jane Brown. Copyright claimed in Chapters 7-10, exclusive of U. S. Government maps

Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, that consist primarily of one or more works of the U. S. Government should have a notice and the identifying statement.

I've never believed that use of a sample necessarily led to the creation of a derivative work. A derivative work is legally defined in the statute, 17 USC 101 :

A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

As I read this, to be a "derivative work", the base work must be "recast, transformed, or adapted", i.e. modified but still recognizably the same (more or less whole) work.

While a quote, reference, or sample may be "derivative" in everyday terms or in some sort of academic analysis, it doesn't seem to meet the legal definition.

However, with all the sampling decisions so far, it seems that Federal judges don't agree with me, the bastards...

To make this clear with an example, let's assume that Moby Dick is still copyrighted. I don't exactly think that beginning a new novel with '"Call me Ishmael", he said snidely.' would make the new novel a legal "derivative work" of Moby Dick, despite the intellectual heritage.

My interest is fair use, the ability to record my compositions and performance with studio grade equipment at a reasonable cost.

No, this isn't "fair use"-- fair use is an allowance for you to use someone ELSE'S copyrighted material for a limited purpose-- a review, an excerpt, until recently a sample, etc for certain purposes. What you're talking about is a legitimate use that gives you the SAME powers as the RIAA has for their own copyrighted works. The RIAA can claim that you might use this to infringe on their copyrights. You can argue that they may use the equipment they currently use to infringe on yours.

W

Form PA is used for copyrighting printed music and/or lyrics on traditional staff paper.

Form SR is used for copyrighting a finished music production that can be played back on any music reproduction device. Every track on every album has a form SR associated with it.

You cannot copyright a rhythm or a "riff"; the copyright protects a complete song on the basis of melody, lyrics, and chord/bass structure. Huey Lewis & the News won a copyright infringement against Ray Parker Jr in 1981 when a court concluded that the "Ghostbusters" theme song was too identical to "I want a new drug".

However there are publishing licenses, mechanical licences, print licenses, et al as described here. These are the protection mechanisms of copyrighted music that go all the way back to the birth of radio in the 1920s. Sampling falls under the definition of a music reproduction device. If a sample artist intends to "lift" a segment of a prerecorded work for profit, they need to get mechanical license to use them or they risk forfeiting all profits to the copyright owner. The precedent was established all the way back to Vanilla Ice plagiarizing the main hook from Queen's "Under Pressure" for his hit song "Ice Ice Baby".

Fair use applies when there is no profit earned. Earn a profit and you attract trouble if you don't get permission to use samples. There is a good primer on copyright fair use here.

Form PA is used for copyrighting printed music and/or lyrics on traditional staff paper.

Form SR is used for copyrighting a finished music production that can be played back on any music reproduction device. Every track on every album has a form SR associated with it.

You cannot copyright a rhythm or a "riff"; the copyright protects a complete song on the basis of melody, lyrics, and chord/bass structure. Huey Lewis & the News won a copyright infringement against Ray Parker Jr in 1981 when a court concluded that the "Ghostbusters" theme song was too identical to "I want a new drug".

However there are publishing licenses, mechanical licences, print licenses, et al as described here. These are the protection mechanisms of copyrighted music that go all the way back to the birth of radio in the 1920s. Sampling falls under the definition of a music reproduction device. If a sample artist intends to "lift" a segment of a prerecorded work for profit, they need to get mechanical license to use them or they risk forfeiting all profits to the copyright owner. The precedent was established all the way back to Vanilla Ice plagiarizing the main hook from Queen's "Under Pressure" for his hit song "Ice Ice Baby".

Fair use applies when there is no profit earned. Earn a profit and you attract trouble if you don't get permission to use samples. There is a good primer on copyright fair use here.

It wasn't worth that much. The RIAA asked for the moon, and legally naive people did the math and came up with a huge number as what the RIAA was asking for. All those limitations and others would have come into play in coming up with a damage figure. However, it's not the RIAA that gets to set damages, it's a jury, as constrained by the law and the judge.

Copyright law in general can be found here and the major section on damages is 17 USC 504 , but don't overlook the other sections, especially 505 - the prevailing party can ask for but is not guaranteed attornies fees and costs (but you have to be able to pay your lawyer until you win, and then hope the judge decides it's "just" for you to recover your expenses.)

It wasn't worth that much. The RIAA asked for the moon, and legally naive people did the math and came up with a huge number as what the RIAA was asking for. All those limitations and others would have come into play in coming up with a damage figure. However, it's not the RIAA that gets to set damages, it's a jury, as constrained by the law and the judge.

Copyright law in general can be found here and the major section on damages is 17 USC 504 , but don't overlook the other sections, especially 505 - the prevailing party can ask for but is not guaranteed attornies fees and costs (but you have to be able to pay your lawyer until you win, and then hope the judge decides it's "just" for you to recover your expenses.)

There must me more to this story than you're telling, otherwise that's not actually fair use. Fair use is this. Unless you never listen to it and just store it for him for when he wants it (ie, space shifting), you're infringing copyright since you don't have a license to listen to that music, only your friend does.

-Brendan