Slashdot Mirror

I can't vouch for Europe. But it looks like reverse engineering is explicitly protected in making originals of copyrighted works and in finding out trade secrets in the US. Check the US Copyright Office and the International Trade Data Sytem.

Legally, to own a copyright for some work, that work does not even need to be registered at the US Copyright Office. All you need to do is to create something. A song, a poem, anything.

Obviously, it will be tougher to win a copyright infringement case in court without having register your work. But the point is, is that anyone can own a copyright for creating anything.

Let the hacker wars begin!

-kali

According to many online sources (e.g. the U.S. Copyright Office or Lawnotes), works created by the U.S. Government are not copyrightable. However, the government can aquire copyrights for works created by others.

Can anyone detail for me exactly what the fees are today? I run a small station with a handful of loyal listeners and if the fees are very small, I'm not opposed to paying them.

Who exactly gets the fees? Where do I send the money? And should I even bother with it when I only have a few listeners? Are there any other fees besides the .02 cents per song listed on this page?

If I pay these fees can I pretty much stream any music I want to no matter what?

I'd suggest you point iTunes to the stream at Tag's Trance, but the CARP legislation got in the way :(

It is illegal for me to make an mp3 of a Britney Spear's song and distribute it. Period. End of story. I do not have permission to share the song. With anyone, except for certain Fair Use situations, which are fairly restrictive and certainly do not include anonymous sharing over a worldwide network.

It is not illegal for Slashdot to write articles for the web and "share" the HTML files. They own the copyright for the articles, or have permission/license to share the stuff here.

Finally, in neither case, is the person downloading the file, mp3 or html, going to be committing a crime, because how the hell do they know if the file is illegal or not? We *might* be able to argue that they had a reasonable suspicion that the files were illegal copies, but the primary guilt is still with the person offering them up for download.

Here is a formula for determining damages.
Actual Damages
Actual Damages and Profits.-The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

Statutory damages
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

Oh yeah, they get to impound your computer, too.Copyright law on damages

Of course, they have to front the money for the lawyer to investigate and pursue you, so you better be worth some $$ to them. I somehow think that the RIAA will pursue statutory damages, as file sharers are not making any cash from the endeavor. It could end up costing the RIAA a lot more to pursue than they will recover from settlements. I guess they are betting their revenues will rise when they knock out the supernodes.

Somehow I think slashing their prices would be a better idea...

I think that software companies should have to submit all source to the copyright office for exactly this reason. The concept of things falling into the public domain includes them being in a useful state when they do, and software won't be.

Of course, for this to work, you'd have to reverse the Berne convention and go back to requiring copyrights to be registered. (Which probably would be a good thing for the public interest as well, but that's another point.)

The copyright office's Circular 61 requires that much of the source code be submitted with a copyright registration request, about 50 pages, with trade secrets blacked out. One could imagine a copyright reform requiring that registrations, to be accepted, must be accompanied by the entire uncensored source code of the work to be copyrighted, and that trade secrets which are patentable would be required to be patented before copyright is registered, obviating the need for blocking out trade secrets in the source code. Unregistered works would not get the more onerous protections of the DMCA, but just the standard Berne Convention protections. Of course, the producers would be up in arms. Can you imagine how MS would feel having to register an entire hard copy of the Windows source code to get protection under the DMCA?

BTW, in case it ain't obvious, IANAL.

Your post is so full of factual errors it is obvious that you don't know what you are talking about.

In many countries there is no requirement to submit works to the national library unless they are "formally published"

Name one country where you do not have to submit a copy of an unpublished work to register the copyright.

There is no need to register that copyright, it simply exists.

You own the copyright on anything you make. If you do not register it, however, you won't be able to collect damages for infringement.

If you publish the work, you need to put a valid copyright declaration on it (which must be either the word "Copyright" or the copyright symbol [ (C) isn't valid! ], followed by the date of publication OR a date range indicating the first publication and the most recent publication, followed by the identity of the copyright holder.

Not only did you get it backwards, (the UCC only recognizes the (c) as a valid copyright notice) but all of the above is meaningless if you haven't registered the copyright.

When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the author to prove that their work predates any work the claimant can prove.

Wrong.

One recommended method is to post yourself a registered mail containing the copyright work, or significant parts thereof, and not to open that mail.

This is definately NOT a recommended method. The only recommended method is formal registration.

you can produce the unopened mail, which proves the date at which you had the full work

Actually it only proves that you can mail yourself an empty(?) envelope.

You might look here for some correct information on copyright in the US. There are also links to international copyright law.

That's not entirely accurate. The US Copyright Office's web site states, "No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright."

I mostly agree with you, however I thought I'd dispute a few points.

I'm also frightened by the proposed Palladium system from our favorite software monopoly. The notion that machines I buy for my own purposes will be "checking up on me" to make sure I'm honest is profoundly disturbing.

Palladium doesn't check up on you. It makes sure you can't do anything a few hardware/software venders don't want you to do. ...and it also enforces what you are allowed to do with specific files--set by the creator of that file. It's like they own your computer, and you are just borrowing it from them--funny how they're taking away ownership from the common person. Next, you'll be considered property of various corporations because you ate some of "their" food that you "rented".

If I may throw some blame in the other direction, think about these developments the next time you violate someone's copyright. If weren't doing that, the motivation behind a lot of these "Big Brother" technologies would go away. Your crime is not victimless.

I agree that copyright infringement has victims, however they are only victims if they lose a sale. IANAL, but that appears to be part of fair use--"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." ( Title 17 of the United States Code - chapter 1 section 107)

However I disagree that infringement is the cause of these "big brother" measures. It's all about how many corporations believe that they have a "right" to profits. Why else would that clause in NAFTA chapter 11 be an issue? Corporations' interpetation of this law allowed them to sue the United States and Mexico because those countries enforced antitrust and environmental law! The entertainment cartel is no different--they believe that they should be allowed to sell plutonium laced food to children if they can make a profit from it. ...or create laws that allow them to control all audio and video distribution systems.

As for me, I'm going to avoid doing business with the cartel as much as possible. I just recieved my order from CDBaby, and I'm very satisfied with it. At least I have a resonable assurance that the money I pay them won't be used to take away my freedom, deny me the ability to play CDs I bought, or steal money from me.

Study the chart here.

Under, "All other Internet transmissions ("Internet-only" transmissions) (whether transmitted by a broadcaster or a webcaster)" it clearly says $.0007.

You are also acting under the unproven, but hopefully true, assumption that non-RIAA music is not charged royalties.

Yes, there are stations which have over 1000 listeners.

Even if your numbers were correct, multiply $3 per hour * 730 hours per month and you get $2190/month in RIAA fees. With the 8.8% ephemeral performance surcharge, it increases to $2382.72. Don't forget ASCAP/BMI/SECAC fees, and actually buying the music you're paying the RIAA for the privilege of promoting. Oh yeah, web hosting and bandwidth costs too. A cheap bandwidth provider will run you $4000/month for 1000 listeners @ 128k/sec. Welcome to the world of internet radio!

This Library is a gift to the nation [...] this is a national celebration, not just of an institution but of the role of libraries everywhere in providing free and open access to knowledge and information.

-- James H. Billington, April 24, 2000

June 20, 2002: The Librarian of Congress is to librarianship as a fireman in Fahrenheit 451 is to firefighting.

Another sad day for the greatest Library mankind has ever created.

If they can demonstrate that something in the emulator is, in fact, violating some bloody copy–protection scheme (whether it works or no) OR if they can demonstrate that the emulator itself is primarily used for violation, then, the software itself can be considered a violation of the copyrights, according to the DMCA (section 1201 applies, as I recall) DMCA at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

(yes, this is ridiculous, but it is the current law.)

Similarly, those who do not defend their copyrights religiously, lose them to public domain. Both of these factors combine to make the emulation world a headache. Why else do you think these products are being so furiously persued? They know full-well that they aren't going to make a killing on the "lost sales" from the ROMs.

Piracy, I do not condone, but I think that Fair-Use should, and frankly does include using that which you already own in any applicable media, including emulation.

Here are the exact words from the FAQ of the Library of Congress:

How do I register my copyright?
To register a work, you need to submit a completed application form, a non-refundable filing fee of $30, and a non-returnable copy or copies of the work to be registered. See Circular 1, section Registration Procedures.

...and...

HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHT
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

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

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

and later...

COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION
In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

• 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. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov for online publications.

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

Has anyone put up a mirror of the contents in HTML or plain text?

Has anyone put up a mirror of the contents in HTML or plain text?

Isn't the use of copyrighted works a matter of getting permission from the rights holder? Can't the rights holder insist on whatever royalty payment system he feels is appropriate?

17 USC 115. Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords

This, like many things you post about, has nothing to do with censorware.

That is incorrect. The original question concerned. Librarian of Congress exemptions. I am quite familiar with that topic, having played a role in establishing one of the only two DMCA exemptions granted. Those two exemptions were for obsoleteness and for censorware. I then quoted part of the actual text of the exemption to demonstrate how narrow was the exemption granted. I suppose I could have quoted the text for the obsoleteness exemption, but given a choice, why not use the relevant topic dear to my heart?

So you are mistaken, it was written in direct and accurate response to the original poster's question.

Of course, I talk about censorware a great deal. I've done much of the pioneering work on that topic. And if I may say so, I'm expert about it and familiar with the relevant legal issues surrounding it. And these legal issues strongly connect with the DMCA, per above.

I usually don't reply to personal attacks in these threads. But since you're not a troll, and it is arguably on-topic, I'll make an exception here.

Regarding going up against the DMCA myself, well, just how eager would you be to take legal risk in my place, given that Michael Sims has done actions such as What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) ? That's an extremely serious question. This isn't a game. It's not a silly flame-war. Note what this story is about - 2600 has lost at every LEGAL level, been outright flamed by the judge in the original case decision, and DeCSS cases have even had comments from Slashdot postings used against them. The smears you mention, have been against me. If I take too much legal risk, as sure as the other side has lawyers, it's all going to be in their court evidence. So I feel heavily constrained as to what I can do to fight the DMCA, in large part because I have to worry about a Slashdot editor who has already shown he's extremely willing to abuse power for revenge.

Maybe I'll get modded down for this, but it's late, and I'm tired. It's not a nice topic. But going to jail over the DMCA is far worse. And I didn't take any vow of silence about Michael Sims.

"Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works"

Already happened, and it'll be a while before it can be lobbied again. It only applies to doing circumvention, not to technology.

Take a look at the formal text (I'm mentioned twice! :-) ) at

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights and Determination of the Librarian of Congress, 65 FR 64555, October 27, 2000

For example:

A review of the factors listed in 1201(a)(1)(C) supports the creation of this exemption. Although one can speculate that the availability of technological protection measures that deny access to the lists of blocked websites might be of benefit to the proprietors of filtering software, and might even increase the willingness of those proprietors to make the software available for use by the public, no commenters or witnesses came forward to make such an assertion. No information was presented relating to the use of either the filtering software or the lists of blocked websites for nonprofit archival, preservation and educational purposes. Nor was any information presented relating to whether the circumvention of technological measures preventing access to the lists has had an impact on the market for or value of filtering software or the compilations of objectionable websites contained therein. However, a persuasive case was made that the existence of access control measures has had an adverse effect on criticism and comment, and most likely news reporting, and that the prohibition on circumvention of access control measures will have an adverse effect."

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

This note really indicates that you can make a difference -- if only you take action. Bear in mind that some/most/all Slashdotters know more about the reality of internet radio than the LOC. This is probably also the case for most highly technical issues.

You will have to guess which of the 39 commenters I am, but I note with some satisfaction that the reply comments from the RIAA indicated that they read my initial comments, and they couldn't figure out how to respond to one of the issues raised.

This note really indicates that you can make a difference -- if only you take action. Bear in mind that some/most/all Slashdotters know more about the reality of internet radio than the LOC. This is probably also the case for most highly technical issues.

You will have to guess which of the 39 commenters I am, but I note with some satisfaction that the reply comments from the RIAA indicated that they read my initial comments, and they couldn't figure out how to respond to one of the issues raised.

I dunno, I agree w/ Phil Greenspun. Manufacturers getting wacked over the head by the content industry and a crippled product certainly didn't help. Maybe you're right, I went and checked with the Library of Congress and they only collected $3million in 1999 (LOC 2000 Annual Report, in the appendix p9).

Minidisc isn't big in the general consumer market but is way more successful than DAT in the low end audio recording community. The lessons from DAT are clear in how this product has been developed, MD's lossy compression essentially emulates analog's generation loss. Manufacturers did this for a very specific reason, to avoid the Digital Audio Home Recording Act. Now we're likely to see the next step in that process with SSSCA, which will probably outlaw general purpose computers.

Who remembers the DAT tax? Before doing digital audio on computers was made practical by mp3 and cd-r there was DAT. And the music industry clamped down hard to prevent it from becoming a consumer product. So they got a tax placed on DAT media and devices and had a chip implanted in every DAT device to prevent copying.

Thought it was relevant to this, but didn't think the slashdotters would let me do a feature ;)

Anyhoo, here's some reference links

The right way to tax dat by RMS

Phillip Greenspun comments and gave testimony before the Senate.

What happens to the money that the Library of Congress collects.

Don't forget when you listen to the radio there are cumplusary licenses in effect -- but the artists get NO $$$$

Don't forget when you listen to the radio there are cumplusary licenses in effect -- but the artists get NO $$$$

After looking into the statutes for a while, it seems even the loophole may have a loophole. According to Section 114 (d)(1)(B)(i), the exemption for retransmissions only applies as long as "the radio station's broadcast transmission is not willfully or repeatedly retransmitted more than a radius of 150 miles from the site of the radio broadcast transmitter."

So, it's not licensing that's the issue, it's range. Or so it seems. The RIAA wins again.

The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, other than as a part of an interactive service, is not an infringement of section 106(6) if the performance is part of ...a nonsubscription broadcast transmission.

The performance of a sound recording publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, other than as a part of an interactive service, is not an infringement of section 106(6) if the performance is part of ...a nonsubscription broadcast transmission.

How can one declare creating a backup copy of media that you hold a license to (note: you don't own the material, just the media that it came on), to be an enhancement of 'fair-use' laws? The two are exclusive from each other. I have seen time and again people using the term 'fair-use' when in reality they meant 'use however I want to' For a definition of 'fair-use' look here Copyright Office Document FL102 Notice that it does *NOT* say anything about copying a CD / Music / DVD or anything for any purpose other than for "...criticism, comment, news reporting, education, scholarship or research..." And don't try to use the line of "I have to crack this DVD encryption in order to further my research" sure you do *wink*.