Slashdot Mirror

I am telling you that after a work has become public domain you still can't use the characters if they are trademarked and you post a link to derivative works while a work is still under copyright protection. Is there a connection in there somewhere that I am missing?

He is also incorrect in saying that using a character from one novel in another novel is a derivative work. Here is a better source for information on copyrights - Library of Congress. I recommend you start there instead of using non-lawyer interpretations.

I am not sure what points you think I was wrong on but I think you are the one that needs to go back and read those OD links. Only a particular drawing of a character can be copyrighted. From the Library of Congrees - "Copyright protects 'original works of authorship' that are fixed in a tangible form of expression." The drawings of Mickey Mouse used in Steamboat Willie are copyrighted as of their creation date (not the date it came out) but the general idea of a mouse who wears short pants and has a high pitched voice can not be copyrighted only trademarked.

People really need to do some research before posting.

Be very careful in setting this up. It is explicitly illegal to rent, lend, or lease any music recording without permission from the copyright owner. You could try to claim that this setup isn't renting or lending, but there's a good chance you'd lose. Software and music are the ONLY two artistic works that are protected this way. Sigh.
However, it is explicitly legal to lend music recordings or software if you are a non-profit library or educational institution. So, if you can get the co-op declared a non-profit library, you might be alright.
Even under the non-profit library exemption, you'll still have to work out whether it's legal to format shift, destroy the original, then sell the new format as you would have sold the original. If it's legal to do that, it would be legal to buy a book, type it into the computer, burn the book, then sell the unprotected digital copy. Hmmm. Reasonable, but possibly not legal in today's insanely paranoid world.
You'll definitely have to destroy the original CD, or they'll get you for keeping a copy after sale. I'd consult a lawyer to find out if lending the format shifted version is going to fly or not.
IANAL. For the details on music rentals, look at section 109 paragraph b here

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.html#durati on Sorry dude, its expired

IANAL, but my term paper this semester is about copyright law, so :P

Several people in the main thread mention that the original banned comic was a work of parady, which is protected in copyright by fair use. However, the Rome Act of 1928, which amends the Berne Convention, does recognize the right of copyright holders to object to malicious modifications of copyrighted material. The key is whether or not it _might_ prejudice or decrease the copyright holder's reputation.

Sorry, folks, I don't like omni-mega media corp smacking around the little guy either; but, it looks like they might actually have a leg to stand on legally that wasn't "purchased" recently.

DMCA is relevant to your situation if the license constitutes "copyright management information."

DMCA provides several provisions, not all of which are wholly evil. Section 1201 (a)(1)(A) (the "anti-circumvention clause") provides that "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." it goes on to list a variety of exceptions. The failure to include enough meaningful exceptions is a serious flaw in the law.

Section 1201(a)(2) (the "anti-trafficking" clause) goes on to provide that "no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" among other things. This is not an entirely bad thing, though it has been terribly abused by RIAA and MPAA to prvent the distribution of things that do have reasonable commercial value.

Section 1202 (b)(1) provides that "No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information."

Rather than railing against the "DMCA" it would seem that supporters ofopen source ought to be strongly supporting 1202(b)(1). People concerned with legitimate security research ought to be interested in expanding the expemptions to 1201(a)(1), while people concerned with playing their digital content on devices of their choosing ought to be concerned with 1201(b) in general.

The copyright office is holding hearings on 1201(a)(1), though it is too late to participate if you haven't already.

Instead of uninformed bitching about DMCA as a whole, read the thing and express rational criticism instead of hysterical nonsense. You'll get farther that way.

problem is that listening to mp3's does not steal from anyone.
As always, IANAL but let's play devil's advocate for a minute anyways. Media companies produce a product, music. It's distributed on CD's, cassettes, LP's , or however but the product itself is music. They've paid money to the musicians, spent money advertising, pressing and distributing media and typical business overhead but the actual product is intangible. US Copyright law [copyright.gov] gives the media company the exclusive right to reproduce the works in copies. I believe most other countries' copyright laws state the same things

While you're correct, the act of listening to mp3's doesn't steal from anyone? Distributing those mp3's, however, does break US copyright law. If one copy of the song was purchased and 10 copies have been distributed, isn't that 10 copies that may have been sold?

Ok, enough devils advocate, I feel dirty already. Want to change things? Stop buying CD's sold by the big companies. Support independant bands by purchasing their stuff or otherwise giving them money, nobody eats for free you know. Swap mp3's if you like but don't believe that "since it's intangible, it's not theft"

thus endeth the rant...

Well, they accepted comments supporting exemptions from the DMCA, and also accepted reply comments to those, and are now holding hearings about the proposed exemptions. So they do more with the comments than just forget about them, at least in this case.

Well, they accepted comments supporting exemptions from the DMCA, and also accepted reply comments to those, and are now holding hearings about the proposed exemptions. So they do more with the comments than just forget about them, at least in this case.

Well, they accepted comments supporting exemptions from the DMCA, and also accepted reply comments to those, and are now holding hearings about the proposed exemptions. So they do more with the comments than just forget about them, at least in this case.

I will take some of whatever you are smoking. That is a nice theory, but unfortunately your constitutional protections have been under assult for a long time now, and they no longer apply.

It say that the Navy found some hard drives with 100s and 1000s of copyrighted files on them. It never says if the students had a right to have those files... I have 1000s of "copyrighted" files on my hdd in the form of mp3s, which I obtained by buying the CDs and then ripping them...

You see, I'm the author of many of the files, and as such, I hold instant copyright. Quoting from US government copyright office:

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

It will be because judges can't read, or have been bought. I know Jack Valenti is out their trying to convince the world that we just mad up fair use:
JV: What is fair use? Fair use is not a law. There's nothing in law.

Apparently he hasn't read Title 17 down to section 107. The section titled:

Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

But any one who can read that far would also hit [Title 17] section 104 which contains:

(1) ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT IN RESTORED WORKS IN THE ABSENCE OF A RELI- ANCE PARTY.--As against any party who is not a reliance party, the remedies pro- vided in chapter 5 of this title shall be available on or after the date of restoration of a restored copyright with respect to an act of infringement of the restored copyright that is commenced on or after the date of restoration.[emphasis mine]

Makes it pretty clear that even if Fox got their copyright restored, that damages for acts prior to that time are clearly unavailable.

I for one hope they get their bottoms spanked in court for this.

So, assuming that's not possible -- is the DMCA a viable tool to ensure security?

The DMCA isn't about secruity--it's about copyright. Read the DMCA, also known as Chapter 12 of Title 17, USC, and decide for yourself.

IMO, the law should either be moved to a general security law, or it shouldn't be interpreted to cover anything except the aiding and abeiting of real anti-copyright infringment sale aid--that is, unless a device is intended to protect a document that's transmitted / broadcast, the DMCA shouldn't touch it.

Then again, these are new positions for me--reply and you might change me again.

While the judge's reasoning in this case appears to be wrong, the outcome of the his decision is correct. Part of the anti-circumvention clause states that the Copyright Office was to hold hearings to decide on specific classes of work that should be exempt. They only picked two, which were:

1. Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
2. Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications

In other words, what the plaintiff wanted to do is not illegal, so he has no standing to challenge the law. You can read about it here. FWIW, that may not be true for long. The Copyright Office is holding another round of hearings, and one of the scheduled topics is whether this exemption should be continued.

While the judge's reasoning in this case appears to be wrong, the outcome of the his decision is correct. Part of the anti-circumvention clause states that the Copyright Office was to hold hearings to decide on specific classes of work that should be exempt. They only picked two, which were:

1. Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage or obsolescence.
2. Compilations consisting of lists of websites blocked by filtering software applications

In other words, what the plaintiff wanted to do is not illegal, so he has no standing to challenge the law. You can read about it here. FWIW, that may not be true for long. The Copyright Office is holding another round of hearings, and one of the scheduled topics is whether this exemption should be continued.

Why do we need the DMCA again? Oh yes, to assert our God Given Right to own ideas forever.

I stand corrected. Sigh.

No, they don't have to prove that. All they have to do is prove to the judge that the copyright violation was "willful" and the Copyright Act allows for the judge, at his or her discretion, to impose up to $150,000 in statutory, (not compensatory or punitive) damages per infringement.

I'm just curious, but at some point, doesn't it make sense just to leave the damn country for good? I mean at least we can still come and go sort of freely (for now)...why don't we all just go? No country can have power without a reasonably large populace underneath it. Clearly, this one is broken, and there is a lot of resistance to fixing it.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to John's Switch To Canada parody?

they'd have to prove that each album he offered caused 120,000 less copies of that album to be sold.

No, they don't have to prove that. All they have to do is prove to the judge that the copyright violation was "willful" and the Copyright Act allows for the judge, at his or her discretion, to impose up to $150,000 in statutory, (not compensatory or punitive) damages per infringement.

I'm "anti-bono"

Have you written your legislature in support of legislation like the Eldred Act? The Eldred Act seeks to apply only the bare Berne minimum copyright term (life + 50) to works whose copyright has not been registered, as a starting point for future reductions.

In some cases the testing period eats up almost the entire patent period. Rather than a global extention on patent durations they should "stop the clock" during any government mandated testing procedures.

They already do in the USA. A patent holder can apply for a term extension of up to five years to account for time spent waiting for regulatory approval.

According to copyright law it IS in fact my data.

I don't think that is correct. The work is owned for a (not so) limited time by the creator. It is licensed to you under the terms of copyright law by default, but other contracts can be used. Copyright in the constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Specifically, the US Copyright Office FAQ says:

"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 reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
- To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
- To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
- To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
- To display the copyrighted work publicly, 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; and
- In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

Now, you can argue that this is bad, that those lawmakers were useless, etc., but it doesn't change the law. You'd be better served putting your energies into changing the law, or coping with it, which is all I'm saying. DRM is the natural reaction to file-sharing. Better to help create it - and so make sure it's fairly applied - than pretend the law isn't what it is and that Big Media/MS don't have money and good lawyers. Of course if things get really bleak, resist.

Final version, as found on copyright.gov.

"The justification for allowing someone to break through a protection today because it may not work tomorrow is unpersuasive."

"Finally, Submission 35(1), addressing copy-protected CDs, is out of the scope of this proceeding because, among other things, it appears that the proposal is directed at copy controls that inadvertently deny access by virtue of a malfunction, rather than to technical measures that control access in the ordinary course of their operation. In any event, this submission does not meet the requisite burden of showing a substantial adverse impact caused by Section 1201(a)(1)."

"If that is the case, a fear of malfunction does not convert a copy control technology into an access control, nor does it provide any legal basis for creating any exemption to Section 1201(a)(1).9"

"Turning to the submissions themselves, we do not believe that any of them carries the burden required to justify the recognition of any of the classes proposed in this area."

"The justification for allowing someone to break through a protection today because it may not work tomorrow is unpersuasive."

"Finally, Submission 35(1), addressing copy-protected CDs, is out of the scope of this proceeding because, among other things, it appears that the proposal is directed at copy controls that inadvertently deny access by virtue of a malfunction, rather than to technical measures that control access in the ordinary course of their operation. In any event, this submission does not meet the requisite burden of showing a substantial adverse impact caused by Section 1201(a)(1)."

"If that is the case, a fear of malfunction does not convert a copy control technology into an access control, nor does it provide any legal basis for creating any exemption to Section 1201(a)(1).9"

"Turning to the submissions themselves, we do not believe that any of them carries the burden required to justify the recognition of any of the classes proposed in this area."

from what I understand, if you don't aggresively persue all potential infringements with legal action, you lose your copyright- its meaningless.

To put it bluntly, you are dead wrong, as are all the other of hundreds of posters who've said the same thing on /. over the years.

In the US as well as in other signatories of the Berne Convention, you don't give up your copyright through neglect. Further, you don't have to register or publish something in order for it to be copyrighted. (Although you do give up certain rights.) And finally, if you do publish a work, you're not required to place a copyright notice on it.

All of this info is available at the LOC Copyright Office. One would think that on a tech-savvy site such as this, such misinformation would stop being so glibly circulated. I guess one would be wrong.

So as not to be coy, I'll point out that what you were doubtless thinking about was trademarks. Unlike copyrights and patents, trademarks (and servicemarks) don't automatically expire after a set time. However, if you don't protect them from being diluted, they can lose value and once that occurs, it is possible for you to lose your ability to prosecute others for unauthorized use of them. Note that even so it is a distortion to claim that you must aggrgressively pursue "all" potential infringements. Toys"R"Us, Inc. doesn't have to go after every single nickel and dime "Junk 'R' Us" store in the entire world. To the extent that they choose to do so is a matter for their legal staff to decide.

At least, that's my understanding. IANAL, either, and even if I were, it wouldn't mean I was right.

Facts are not copyrightable --parent's parent

I don't see how "prices" or "facts" immediately fit in --parent

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. --FL102

You cannot copyright facts. It would be like copyrighting the temperature today. The first one to publish it could then claim the rights to it.

Instead, the argument will be that the EULA that they automatically agreed to, and never saw forbids screenscraping.

I for one would like to see an end to contracts that don't even require me to click on an 'I Agree' button. I can't see how I am bound to a contract because I loaded a webpage. Logging in and clicking agree... maybee. But doing a GET to an HTTP Server can't be the same as Agreeing to something.

Facts are not copyrightable. Airfares are facts. There was a big case between the bells and 3rd party phonebook makers where this was determined to be the case.

Apparantly, that's the FEIST case from 1996.

See this document from the LOC and scroll down to section C.

If a chineese restaurant listing can be copyrightable, so can airfares on a website.

Of course, to be pendantic, the more important (IMO) aspect of this case is EULAs for web sites.

IANAL,YMMV,BYOLA.

First responsibility is yourself. Register (you or a responsible employee) as an agent of copyright. Registering limits an ISP's liability right off the bat (punitive type liability). There is a U.S goverment web page with a form and $30 dollar fee. It might even be a good way to find the addresses of others in your situation. (Your local *.edu might helpful.)
If you create new and unique contact information for this copyright registry, they you safely suspect all claims of copyright sent to any other address.

If the claim is bogus, that might be actionable. When I get just such a nastygram it says:

Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that we are authorized to act on behalf of the owners of th e exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.

Secondly, let the customer know that someone is out to get them. Also remind them (in a friendly, non email way) that copyright infringment is against your AUP and just isn't cool. Parody is cool. So is political speech. You and another reasonable person should be able to make a determination that infringement has taken place.

I repeat myself: no matter how many times you might repeat that, it still isn't true. You can rationalize all you like, and say that ideas should be common property, but unless you reject the idea of private ownership wholesale-- some people obviously do-- then ideas are owned just like anything else.

Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. (My emphasis)

-sk

Not to target you specificly, a lot of people don't seem to get the real issues here.

But let's not forget that there are legitimate concerns about the pirating of software and music.

Let's not forget about the legitimate concerns of the general public. The DMCA and DRM have very real consequences to the public's right to free speech, free press (meaning the ability to pubilsh), and copyrights. When I say copyrights, I mean everyone's copyright. Right now, this post I write is copyrighted under the Berne Convention. Documents and recordings created by the general public are worth many times more than your piddly little music and video game companies.

Someone who shoots a video with their camcorder should be able to copy the video without restrictions--they own the copyright. Someone who writes a document in MS Word 2010 should be able to copy, print, and transfer the document to any computer running any wordprocessing program. An email created by Outlook 2010 addressed to a specific person should be readable by that person no matter what email client he/she uses. The DMCA, Palladium, and other mechanisms will prevent the common person from doing such things.

This answer which you cited last week seems pretty clear to me.

Unfortunately, that answer solves nothing. It is the contents of a FAQ on GNU's webpage, and it doesn't matter, legally. The only things which really matter are the text of the GPL, and the laws of the jurisdiction.

"Distribution" has a meaning in the English language. "To pass out". Giving the software to other members of a company means "passing it out". And before it can be passed out, someone's got to make some copies. "Reproduce it".

"Reproducing" or "distributing" a copyrighted work (which all GPLed programs are), is illegal. Unless the copyright holder has given you permission. It is one of the actions that are "prohibited by law if you do not accept this License." (GPLv2 section 5)

So, if one employee gives the program to another, he must do so under the GPL. Which means granting the reciever full permission to give further copies to whoever he wants.

A comparison:
Can an employee of a company make a copy of Adobe Photoshop for another member of the company? Then why could he make a copy of Gimp, without special permission from the author.

Now, if the FSF had intended to permit corporations to alter GPL code, and give it to all their employees, but under the threat of termination and lawsuit if they passed it out to anyone else, then they should've stated this in the license.

The vague FAQ entry might amount to a promise from the FSF that they won't procescute a corporation for doing that, but other users of the GPL (like Linus Torvalds) will not necessarily agree with that interpretation.

The U.S. Copyright Office should not be used as an substitute yet uber-patent office. By adding any sort trivial addition to a mechanical device to lay a DMCA claim, one can create in effect a de facto patent protection of a commercial device, but with a much longer or unlimited term, and with a free ride of enforcement by the U.S. Government. This is clearly not what Copyrights are intended to protect.

Imagine an automotive company wishes to force people to purchase only tires manufactured by themselves. They first attempt to force consumer choice by patenting the idea of round tires, but the US Patent Office rules (correctly) that their design has not unique and denies the application. All the MBA's in upper management are crushed.

"Fear not," their lawyers cry, "we'll get something better...we'll get you protection -- and not for a patent's measly 20 years. No we'll give you 120 years of protection...AND the U.S. Government will investigate violations and enforce this 'uber-patent' for you."

"But How?" cry the hopeful executives grateful disbelief.

"But won't our better priced competitors just put the same dime's worth magic in their tires and we'll be back where we started?" wails a VP from under the table of the conference room where they've all gathered.

"...Patents?..." offers a hopeful senior manager.

"But the car's owner...isn't he already the, um, owner of the car and can do what he wants with his property?" worries the CEO aloud. "Isn't he allowed to buy from the competition? Won't we have to forced him to signed a service contract or something that say he must make all future purchases from us."

--

For those concerned that 120 years isn't long enough, a company needs only every 119 years just to change the "Quality Verification Tag" and get a whole new Copyright to fend off any and all competition -- for literally until the end of time (or at least the end of the DMCA)." Disney's aspirations ain't go nothin' on Lexmark.

Those who help create the U.S. Constitution wrote in Article I, section 8,

"Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..." [Note: though already clear, emphasis added]

Applying the DMCA on goods, rather than on information alone, gives non-US-based industry a great advantage over its US-based counterparts. As a European, I find this to be an excellent development and hope that Static Control's petition will be rejected.

The Copyright Office is currently considering a petition to exempt printers/cartridges from the DMCA (at Static Control's request, of course!). You have until March 10 at 5pm EST to comment.
Tell them what you think at http://www.copyright.gov/1201/comment_forms/index. html.

Westlaw has a huge advantage over all other comers as they do not copyright the case law, but DO copyright the page numbers.

What's the precedent here? According to the Copyright Office, there have to be substantial creative changes made to an existing work in order for it to qualify for a new copyright.

From Copyright Office FAQ:

You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative -- something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration -- adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 (pdf) for further information.

From Copyright Office FAQ:

You may make a new claim in your work if the changes are substantial and creative -- something more than just editorial changes or minor changes. This would qualify as a new derivative work. For instance, simply making spelling corrections throughout a work does not warrant a new registration -- adding an additional chapter would. See Circular 14 (pdf) for further information.

their versions (I believed) even contained intentional, hopefully harmless typographical errors to prove up theft.

Only original works of authorship are subject to copyright, and introducing typos into a public domain work such as a federal court opinion does not create an original work of authorship according to this FAQ answer at the Copyright Office.

which they quietly published in two position papers

Exactly. Where are their comments as requested by the US Copyright office, which were due Dec 2002?

Your interpretation of US copyright law is just wrong. Maybe you're confused because software publishers write EULAs forbidding behavior which is illegal anyway.

Copyright is about copying, not "distribution" (although it often occurs soon after the reproduction).

You may check the government's page on the law. It says

"the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right ... To reproduce the work in copies"

"Distribution" doesn't matter. You cannot make copies. Simply burning 10 CDROMs and hiding them in a shoebox is illegal.

(There are exceptions to the law, allowing you to reproduce a work in limited quantities, but none would permit you to execute a program twice. Two exceptions are: you may be able to create a single backup, but never use it unless the original is destroyed. And, creating temporary copies as necessary to view a work, such as loading software into RAM, doesn't count as "reproduction")

An additional confusing factor may be this GPL FAQ entry. It states that "copying within an organization is not distribution". Distinguishing beteen "distribution" and "copying" is irrelevant both to copyright law and the GPL, as both forbid "copying" as such.

I'm not sure how they plan on compensating artists with this plan, since there doesn't seem to be a *payment* mechanism.

IANAL, but this sounds like something to aid compulsory licensing. Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 115 c: "To be entitled to receive royalties under a compulsory license, the copyright owner must be identified in the registration or other public records of the Copyright Office." Compulsary licensing just means the broadcaster pays the money to a central organization, and the organization pays the appropriate copyright owner.

The problem is this money is sent to the RIAA (at least that is how I understand it--I can't find the reference, but I'm sure the law said the predecessor to them--the AMA?), and they are supposed to "fairly" redistribute the money to the labels and "artists." Yeah right. The Copyright Office should be the ones to handle this.

This system can also be used for sales outside of the scope of compulsory licensing too.

It strikes me as a first step towards 'Music Audits' in which a hard drive is scanned for the works of particular artists.

No, Palladium is supposed to do that (in addtion to allowing them+M$ to censor anything they want and enforce their monopolistic positions in the market).

A three-line chunk would probably come under fair use.

I seriously doubt that. Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports.

Which of these do you suppose your three line chunk would fall under?

The US Copyright Office gives "prepare derivative works based upon the work" as one of the exclusive rights of a copyright holder, regardless of distribution.

If I buy a Monet, it would be perfectly legal for me to take it home and spray-paint the whole thing black.

Maybe, but if you did that to a recent well-known work, you'd probably get in trouble. Look at the the rights to integrity in current copyright law.

The law does. copy right office see chapter 7 section 704. The goverment is also exempt in many cases from paying IP payments.

To get most of the extensions put forth in these laws you must submit a copy to them. Small price to pay for a 70+ year monopoly...

Its ironic that the goverment is basicly the biggest warez collector there is! Then tells the rest of us to get stuffed!?

As another proposal submitter from the first round, I would like to point out that there are a variety of proposals put forth by commenters on the table. If you find that you are more comfortable supporting a proposal other than the EFF's, more than one proposal, or a combination of several people's proposals, you may freely comment about as few or as many proposals as you choose. If you disagree with a proposal, and wish to have it modified to make it acceptable to you, you may comment about what changes you feel need to be made as well.

To state the obvious: DO NOT COMMENT BLINDLY WITHOUT READING THE RULES. Before I wrote my proposal of possible exclusions, I spent several days simply doing research on what was accepted/not accepted during the previous cycle. I also read the details of what was wanted during the current comment request, and the results of the prior comment period. Doing so greatly helped me tailor my arguments to better address what was being looked for.

Another issue you should note: THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE WANTS TO SEE REAL EVIDENCE THAT NEAR-TERM HARM WILL OCCUR UNLESS AN EXCLUSION IS GRANTED. Contrary to what many slashdotters' think, the copyright office is being very good as to telling us what they want. If you comment during this reply period, *please* provide real-world examples as to why an exclusion should be granted/not granted/granted in modified form/etc. Simply stating "if this is not granted, I will not be able to enjoy my l33t p0rn" likely will not sway anyone to your cause.

Finally, BE SURE TO CITE ALL SOURCES YOU USE SO EVERYONE CAN CONFIRM THE HARM YOU DESCRIBE IS REAL. By doing so, you prove you did your homework, that you read previous commenters' work, and your comment *will* stand out as being from an intelligent person. Try to get reliable sources that have not been used before; simply repeating previously used evidence will not get you very far.

From the Reply Comment Submission Form

Commenters should familiarize themselves with the Register's recommendation in the first rulemaking, since many of these issues which were unsettled at the start of that rulemaking have been addressed in the final decision.

Like that's going to happen...

A) Treasure Planet may be based on Treasure Island but that does not make it a derivative work any more than Romeo and Juliet is a derivative work of "Tristan und Isolde". If RLS gave them permission to take the original Treasure Island and add a new chapter to it then that would be a derivative work. Read this for more info about derivative works (warning - pdf).

B) This is true but moot in light of ...

C) An image can be trademarked also. "A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. "

Let's see, Chapter 17, section 1201:

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

a work protected under this title... OK,

What the complaint seems to be saying is that the portion of the code in the reciever that actually opens the door is protected by the technological measure. You can execute those instructions only by supplying a correct code.

This is kind of a leap. If you circumvent a DRM system, you'll be attacked for gaining access to, say a Liquid Audio song, not the code that decrypts the song.

It does make some sense, though.

Many are confused because the judgement makes the leap in one place & screws up horribly in another, where it seems to claim that

Leap: "II Thus the protectecive measure in Chamberlain's receiver rolling code computer program controlls access to Chamberlain's copyrighted computer program in the receiver that operates Chamberlain's GDOs. The computer program does not execute if an improper rolling code is received from an unauthorized transmitter."

Insanity: "III Skylink's transmission [...] circumvents Chamberlain's rolling code technology, thereby eliminating the important protective measure that prevents burglars with a code grabber from gaining unauthorized access to garages...."

Umm... garage access isn't protected by the DMCA.