Slashdot Mirror

Whoa whoa whoa, folks! When I posted this story, I certainly didn't intend to spark a discussion of various means of violating 17 USC 1201(a). I expect you all to (a) call your lawyers, and (b) consult your nearest spiritual adviser for immediate legal and moral correction. (In all seriousness, thanks to Unknown Lamer for crediting me with the link to freecode. It's a way more diverse and cross-platform list of rippers than I would have included. I just figured that nobody needed my help.) Also, don't forget to tune in to hear the results from the triennial DMCA exemption proceedings, as administered by the Copyright Office. As PK notes in their post, they've filed for an exemption to make it legal when end users rip DVDs for personal use. While the process has been better in recent rounds, don't hold your breath. When Oscar Gandy and I did an analysis of the first two rounds, we condemned the process as a Kafka-esque exercise (pdf) administered by a captured agency. (OK, that's enough of a self-promotional victory lap.)

I do not find it at all coincidental that the Studios announce such a thing so closely to the closing of the initial round of comments for Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention for the DMCA by the Librarian of Congress. Part of the reply the MPAA put forth against Class 10 was that there was not an overwhelming burden affecting the market. Of course, that would be flat-out HOGWASH, as the opposing commenters in the Class pointed out...but looookie here! There is a service that does just that! No need to approve such exemptions!

Hopefully the Librarian of Congress does not fall for this onerous slight-of-hand. (However, I am not exactly confident of that.)

I do not find it at all coincidental that the Studios announce such a thing so closely to the closing of the initial round of comments for Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention for the DMCA by the Librarian of Congress. Part of the reply the MPAA put forth against Class 10 was that there was not an overwhelming burden affecting the market. Of course, that would be flat-out HOGWASH, as the opposing commenters in the Class pointed out...but looookie here! There is a service that does just that! No need to approve such exemptions!

Hopefully the Librarian of Congress does not fall for this onerous slight-of-hand. (However, I am not exactly confident of that.)

The DMCA does not require that Flickr take the images down. Only that they respond appropriately to the DMCA takedown notice. A perfectly reasonable response would be to pass on that notification to the user, and allow them to challenge it BEFORE you take it down.

Legalese is a language all of its own, but maybe an 'IAAL' can clarify...
Under USC 512 ( http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512 )
Section (c) Information Residing on Systems or Networks at Direction of Users.
1c, states:

upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

(emphasis mine)

Doesn't that mean that the clause does in fact require that Flickr 'take the images down' insofar as making them inaccessible?

Shady or no, a list of search results is a list of facts. A list of facts cannot be copyrighted (just like a phone book.) So, fair or not, anyone's search results can be copied and republished without worry of copyright infringement.

As far as them being the biggest offender I was under the assumption that if I posted a video with Alan Parson Project as the background music I am fully allowed to use it under "Fair Use", as long as I'm not making a profit.

Have a look at : http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use re Fair Use.
I think your described use would not fall under Fair Use.

Let me clarify. This should probably be limited to useful articles as defined in http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl103.html . That is, if the rights holder has no intention on producing or selling licenses to make such and such item, then perhaps after a sufficient number of years (I say 7 years) it should become fair use to produce those items most personal uses.

Seems to be a case of the DVD-CCA saying "the letter of the law states this", and Kaleidoscope saying "yes, but that's ridiculous, this in no way harms the DVD-CCA". The judge is simply siding with the law here. That's the way it should work. The problem is that the law's rubbish.
 

Um, I think that Kaleidoscope did adhere to the "letter of the law". The DVD-CCA is the one insisting on not following the letter of the law, but instead going with the principles.

The DMCA talks a lot about fair use. It says that fair use is still allowed, provided that a device that can be used to circumvent a copy protection scheme is not defeated, nor is such a device bought or sold.

Kaliedoscope followed the letter of the law by not messing with the copy protection. It doesn't circumvent it at all. It makes a backup copy of everything, including the copy protection. So, the copy protection mechanism is still in tact, and not defeated.

You may think that making the "backup copy" indicates a defeat of the copy protection mechanism. But backup copies are fully guaranteed by fair use. The DMCA clearly states that fair use still applies, as long as the copy protection mechanism remains in tact.

If you want to read the law for yourself, it's only 18 pages: DMCA pdf

For example, today I get to tell a History teacher that he cannot show MLK's 'I have a dream' speech in a lesson because it's under copyright still ...

You might want to read Section 110 of the U.S. Copyright Code before you actually say something that stupid.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

In my non-lawyer understanding, that fact makes DMCA take-downs bogus since the studio does, in fact, NOT own the copyright to Avatar_screen_rip.torrent

A torrent file could be considered not unlike a listing in a directory or search engine. Such information location tools are subject to the OCILLA takedown procedure in the same way that hosting providers are, according to 17 USC 512(d).

does a site that hosts torrent files but does not contain a tracker (i.e. all the torrents are DHT or use a 3rd party tracker) still subject to this nonsense?

Then the announce URL of the third-party tracker or the key for the DHT is not unlike the URL in a Google search result.

I see a lot of venting and ranting, but not a lot of info about what actually has or has not happened. No one seems to have noticed some of these Web sites are up and running.

copyright.gov is up
DOJ is up
RIAA seems to be down
MPAA is up
UMG is down
BMI is down

OK, now that we've got those facts sorted out, the next question is who cares?

This isn't like a DDOS attack against Amazon or Google. None of these organizations, government or otherwise, depend on their Web sites to transact business. Copyright.gov is an informational resource that contains reference material you can find in many other places. No one cares if it's down. Did you even know it existed before it allegedly went down? Justice.gov exists to inform the people about what the department is doing. That's it. If Anonymous wants to raise awareness about the DOJ's activities, taking their site down has the opposite effect, and does not hurt the DOJ. When was the last time you visited the MPAA or RIAA site? Is that where you're going to look to decide what movie you want to see tomorrow, or what music you're going to buy on iTunes? And UMG and BMI's businesses don't depend on their Web sites... their music is marketed and sold elsewhere.

We've known for about 12 years now that it's really not that hard in the scheme of things to DDOS even the biggest sites on the Web. Remember the shocking 3-hour attack on Yahoo in Feb 2000? The prevailing thought then was, "If they can shut down Yahoo, they can shut down anybody." This was a legitimate concern because with its site down, Yahoo's business does not exist. But these attacks are being directed at sites where it really doesn't matter. All it does it generate a scary-sounding news headline. Some of Anonymous's other antics have some real world implications for their targets... this does not.

Shakespeare and Roman poetry were performance arts, that's how they made their money. Butts in seats.

While some literature was performance art, many works were intended for the private enjoyment of a few. They got made nevertheless.

And honestly I want to understand why you feel you have an intrinsic right to something I made simply because I made it on a computer?

If something ends up on someone else's computer, they ought to be able to do what they like with the bits on their system.

f I make the same game out of wood blocks do you suddenly not have an intrinsic right to it?

Games in fact cannot be copyrighted. From Copyright.gov:

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

So even with traditional US copyright law, others do a right to copy, alter and distribute or sell the game (of course stripped of trademarks and original texts).

They have done it before. And Ginsburg wrote the opinion!

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldrdedo.pdf

and no doubt they will do it again...

Hmm, "I have a dream" speech, 1963. 70 years after that would be 2033. So it would still be under Copyright.

Correction, the expired time does not count from the time he made the speech, but it is the time he died which was in 1968. That means the 70-year term would start from 1968 (and ends in 2038).

Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death. (page 3)

Because unlike FSF vs Cisco, this might be in violation of the the doctrine of fair use

The Copyright Act of 1976 eliminated any need to place a copyright notice.

The 1976 law changed it so that anything you write down is automatically copyrighted, the instant you write it. You can scribble your grocery shopping list on a napkin, milk+eggs+etc+etc+etc, toss it in the garbage, and you have a legally enforcible copyright on it. If someone digs that napkin out of the county garbage dump and publishes it, you can sue him for copyright infringement. And win.

Just like a list of ingredients in a recipe, or a list of phone numbers and addresses, a shopping list is not copyrightable and has no protections.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#recipe

What is protected?

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect

What does copyright protect?
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. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

The Copyright Act of 1976 eliminated any need to place a copyright notice.

The 1976 law changed it so that anything you write down is automatically copyrighted, the instant you write it. You can scribble your grocery shopping list on a napkin, milk+eggs+etc+etc+etc, toss it in the garbage, and you have a legally enforcible copyright on it. If someone digs that napkin out of the county garbage dump and publishes it, you can sue him for copyright infringement. And win.

Just like a list of ingredients in a recipe, or a list of phone numbers and addresses, a shopping list is not copyrightable and has no protections.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#recipe

What is protected?

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect

What does copyright protect?
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. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

Because this has already happened on multiple mobile app stores, and it represents a kink in Firehed's "free market" theory. Someone made a video game "T", someone else made a video game "M" using the same rules as "T" but original code and graphics, and the publisher of "T" filed a takedown on grounds that the copyright in "T" extends to the game's method of play. Despite that this is legally unsupported under U.S. law, the developer of "M" just accepted the takedown because it was cheaper than contesting it and running the risk of having to pay a lawyer to handle a legal defense.

Due to the truly amazing amount of information in your post that is inaccurate, I assume that you are either
1) a troll, or
2) 13 years old ...nevertheless, I'll provide some answers. Maybe it will be helpful for the OP.

Did the guy mention that he copyrighted his work? If he put it out there with nothing indicating that, there's an argument that he put it into the public domain,

If you don't trust me, how about the US Copyright Office?

Q: Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
A: No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

You go on...

If someone is violating the GPL license and selling a modified version of his work, I'd recommend he contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who can help defend him, most likely free of charge.

While the EFF are a bunch of hoopy froods who protect our rights in cyberspace, they are certainly not the first people I'd contact about a GPL infringement. They're not even the 4th or 5th on my list.

Here's my list:
1) GPL-Violations.org - Volunteers, knowledgeable folks who will answer your questions pretty quickly
2) The SFLC (Software Freedom Law Center) - Volunteer lawyers (much slower to respond due to demand, but they know their stuff)
3) The Software Freedom Conservancy (if you want to align your FOSS project with a "non-profit home and infrastructure for FLOSS projects.")
4) The Free Software Foundation, if you have a specific question about some of their GPLed software
5) Bradley Kuhn, Harald Welte, etc..

Jesus... It's amazing what crap a first poster can say.

Have you even read the text of the GPL(v2) ?

No, you can not sell GPLed software you didn't write, though you may charge a distribution fee, and you must provide a way to access the source code you're distributing. If some a-hole is charging $50-ish bucks for your software, take him down.

Here's an exact quote from the on the FSF's website:

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? (#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney)

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

When you mention a "distribution fee," I believe that you're talking about clause 3(b) of the source requirement of the GPLv2 (relevant section italicized):

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

Section 3(b) is talking about a requirement to provide source code to people you've already given binaries. You can still charge them a bunch of money up front for initial access to the program.

It's not always easy to understand parts of the GPL, and the GPLv3 made the whole darn thing a bunch

Actually, it does. Safe Harbour requires you register with the copyright office. If you followed the Righthaven mess, you would have seen the comments from the guy that ran the EMT forum that he didn't know this (which he found out after the court informed him that as he didn't have a registered agent, he had no safe harbour).

See page 11 of http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf - specifically this bit:

In addition, a service provider must have filed with the Copyright Office a designation of an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement. The Office provides a suggested form for the purpose of designating an agent (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/) and maintains a list of agents on the Copyright Office website (http://www.loc.gov/copyright/onlinesp/list/).

http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/a_agents.html

From the U.S. Copyright Office:

"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

Sounds like this snippet met the third purpose. It also seems the rights holder would have a hard time demonstrating the fourth factor, though they would essentially shut YouTube down if they could demonstrate the first factor was a commercial nature, and claimed Google was the commercial beneficiary of that.

The 'amount and substantiality' factor leads you to think that a short clip could violate that, but could we argue in court that a short snippet would actually enhance the market or value by further popularizing the original work and driving even more audience and buyers that might otherwise not be exposed, and did not recieve a substantive portion of the work, therefore impelling them to purchase?

Or more simply put, having heard a short snippet, some of those YouTube viewers might actually buy the damned song that would not otherwise be aware of it at all?

We need to do a lot of work on this, starting at the ballot box.

You could point him (or her) to http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf and specificly ask to comment the remark about the copyrightability of the "format shifter" content.
The document says that a Super CD remixed version of an original CD is a "copyrightable" version.
So it seems logic that a Youtube remixed version should be "copyrightable" for similar reasons.
But calling a lawey might be good idea after all you'll need one to sue CBS anyway :-)

IANAL, but unless you have a better citation, I'll believe 17 USC 512:

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -

(1) that material or activity is infringing, or

(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification,

shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.

Recipes are protected under copyright law
 
No, it doesn't. See here, for instance. If you'd care to point out a recipe that indeed had enough 'substantial literary expression' to maintain an infringement suit, please enlighten us.

Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
Relevant sections...

Initial Ownership. -- Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

So close, but it's 201 b) you should have looked at, not 201 a)

Works Made for Hire. -- In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.

The author of a piece of music is the singer, just as the author of the book is the writer, not the publisher.

Do i need to break out dictionary.com definitions? Who wrote the songs? WHo performed it? Those are the authors, this is simple stuff.

If you dont want to take my word, we will once again ask the US government:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher.

The person running the camera is not the creator of the "original expression". If you really want to be obnoxious about this, you could refuse to read the two links I provided and just claim "nuh uh", but then I wouldnt respond to you, so I really recommend you read those links before responding.

Now when I check a few YouTube links [youtube.com] the message have changed to a terms of use violation instead, convenient for UMG's spin control, eh?

I really dont think UMG has the ability to force the message to change. Someone at youtube makes that decision.

Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does.

Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
Relevant sections...

Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

So it appears the authors-- the artists-- are the initial owners.

TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP:
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law,

ie, by a contract, which was almost CERTAINLY in place, and would have transferred ownership to UMG.

In other words, no, UMG really does own the copyright. The works for hire section might make that a little fuzzier, but presumably the artists are paid to be under a contract, so even that might reinforce UMG's ownership.

When you connect to a server, the GPL bits remain on the server. When you distribute the GPL bits along with your bits, then the terms of the GPL come into play.

If I sold you a computer with a copy of Windows, a copy of Apache configured to serve only to localhost, and a copy of MediaWiki, would I be breaking the law? MediaWiki is GPL software, and it communicates with the Internet Explorer component of Windows through a socket.

But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License

This hinges on the definition of "work based on the Program": "either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications". United States copyright law makes a distinction between a derivative work and a collective work, and I take "mere aggregation" to refer to such a collective work. Furthermore, the GPL refers to "mere aggregation [...] on a volume of a storage or distribution medium" (my emphasis). So the interpretation of "work based on the Program" in light of "mere aggregation" can still apply to distribution.

If C doesn't work when you take away A, then you have created a work based on A

GIMP for Windows doesn't work when I take away Windows. So is GIMP for Windows based on Windows in a copyright law sense? If I sell you a computer that has a copy of Windows and a copy of GIMP installed, along with an archive of the GIMP source tree, have I broken the law? Or let's try another tack: What if C starts working again when I take away A and add V? For example, Modplug Tracker for Windows doesn't work when I take away Windows, but it does work when I take away Windows and add Linux, X, and Wine, after a bit of tweaking of the buffer settings. I'd say the works are separate contributions to a collective work when one can be freely replaced with a complete workalike, and that's easiest to demonstrate when the coupling is narrowed to well-defined message passing.

Hate replying to an AC on such a subject, but then really want to get this off me:

I'm a game developer who doesn't want people to pirate my stuff but don't give a fuck about the 70+ years crap

Then will commit to releasing the game to the public domain after (for example) 10 years? A statement to that effect within the "EULA" of your game would have legal effect unless you've drafted it horribly.

which BTW is irrelevant here because that only applies to music/movies/books and such 'literary' stuff and not games specifically. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If I'm not mistaken, computer programs are considered "literary" works. How else are the game companies claiming copyright over the game code?

Stealing is denying someone just compensation.

As others have mentioned, "stealing" is taking away things owned by others. If I own an expensive car because my rich friend gave it to me as a gift, it's not my "just compensation", but you'd still be stealing if you took it away. "compensation" has nothing to do with the concept of stealing.

What proof do you have that game developers who want to add DRM also want 70+ years of IP protection? I'm a game developer who doesn't want people to pirate my stuff but don't give a fuck about the 70+ years crap - which BTW is irrelevant here because that only applies to music/movies/books and such 'literary' stuff and not games specifically. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

If you make a digital copy of the exact order of 0s and 1s on your computer, you are enjoying the fruits of someone elses labor while denying them just compensation. Stealing is denying someone just compensation. It doesn't have to by physical goods.

You might say why are they entitled to just compensation? Because society has decided to allow artists to choose how they get compensated. Artists choose to create works before they get paid to do so. Or they might get commissioned to create and paid before. Its THEIR choice.

You are free to not support these Artists because you disagree with their business model by supporting other alternatives.

http://www.jamendo.com/en/

http://www.spotify.com/

https://mog.com/

etc, etc

Interesting, do you have any good reference for this?

All US copyright law is under section 17 of the United States Code (USC), and is available online.

Chapter 1 of 17 USC is pretty clear that private copying isn't covered, since it fits the definition of "fair use".

But the law also allows the creation of "temporary versions of copies of a work"

There are similar references to "ephemeral copies" in US law, but it has never been updated to take into account things like computers and the Internet.

The six additional exceptions are as follows:
1. Nonprofit library, archive and educational institution exception
(section 1201(d)). The prohibition on the act of circumvention of
access control measures is subject to an exception that permits
nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions to circumvent
solely for the purpose of making a good faith determination as to
whether they wish to obtain authorized access to the work.
2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law.
3. Encryption research (section 1201(g)). An exception for encryption
research permits circumvention of access control measures, and theThe Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
Copyright Office Summary December 1998 Page 6
development of the technological means to do so, in order to identify
flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies.
4. Protection of minors (section 1201(h)). This exception allows a court
applying the prohibition to a component or part to consider the
necessity for its incorporation in technology that prevents access of
minors to material on the Internet.
5. Personal privacy (section 1201(i)). This exception permits circumvention when the technological measure, or the work it protects, is capable
of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information about
the online activities of a natural person.
6. Security testing (section 1201(j)). This exception permits circumvention of access control measures, and the development of technological
means for such circumvention, for the purpose of testing the security
of a computer, computer system or computer network, with the
authorization of its owner or operator.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.
`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.
`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.
`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs

I would think an independent third party to make the database would be better - we don't want them "accidently" adding extra items to their databases do we? Perhaps the U.S. Copyright Office could help here?

C'mon you app-creaters! Here is an oppitunity for an app right now!

Fair use policy?? This is a fair use policy. What sprint (and every other telco) is doing is called a 'Fuck the Users' Policy.

If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.
dmca.pdf, page 12

This document, from copyright.gov, states very clearly that the provider must put the contested material back up. Having said that, I think there is a distinction to be made between google the ISP provider and YouTube the web application. These may well be separate companies with google being the ISP that was served with a takedown notice and YouTube, on behalf of their users, being the content provider. In this case google is notified as an ISP of the alleged violation. They inform the content provider, YouTube, and take down the content. YouTube informs its customer, Joe User that it has violated the terms of the contract with YouTube. Joe can tell YouTube that he thinks things are ok(via a counterclaim form sent to YouTube) and YouTube will forward the counterclaim to Google, their ISP. Youtube's TOS state that they will forward the user's contact info to their ISP (google) who will send the counter claim on. Google as an ISP now has a requirement, as stated above in the dmca doc, to reinstate the content. YouTube however has no such obligation and in their TOS they use the word "may" when they talk about reinstating the content. This little legal distinction may allow them to skirt the requirement to reinstate the content if they so choose.

Registration with the Copyright Office is not required to copyright a creative work in the United States. Simply adding the usual "Copyright, 2011, Jennifer Author" is all that is needed (17 USC 401). If, however, you wish to bring suit for infringement, you are not entitled to statutory damages or attorneys' fees unless the work is registered (see 17 USC 412). Registered works must be deposited with the Library of Congress which encourages authors to share their works through this enormous public archive.

Minor edit. That should read: "Look into the Creative Commons system."

You'll retain the rights to your work, but make it available for others to use with whatever restrictions (or lack of) you so desire. If you want full control, they offer more traditional copyrights as well. The best part is that the licenses were developed by professional lawyers and they provide forms to craft the appropriate legalese for you to protect your work.

I don't know how it works, but I also recommend registering your work with the Library of Congress electronically for $35. This will get it registered in the National Archives, which is the greatest backup system in the world. This does copyright your work, which can conflict with the Creative Commons license... but since no one has brought the conflicting licenses to court AFAIK, I have no idea what it means to both Copyright and Creative Commons your work.

In the US you automatically get copyrights for your work you don't have to do anything.

http://copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Here's a decent and quick summary, clipped in part from the complaint. Short version: Astrolabe, Inc. has purchased the copyright to the American Atlas

Purchased it as in "they, rather than ACS, own it now", or licensed it, so that they're not the ultimate owners, they're just a licensee? The complaint says

Pursuant to a written agreement, Astrolabe is the copyright assignee of the copyright owner, of certain copyright-protected computer software programs and information contained therein, pursuant to the Copyright Protection Act,17 U.S.C. Section 101, et seq., known as the “ACS Atlas,” consisting of both the “ACS International Atlas,” and the “ACS American Atlas,” in the form of computer software program(s) and/or data bases, and in the form of electronic output and future electronic media from said programs [hereinafter “the Works”].

and

In connection with its rights to reproduce the Works, plaintiff Astrolabe is contractually obligated to pay royalties to the owner/assignor of the copyright and the authors of the same.

which seems to suggest the latter. If it's the latter, I don't know whether that means that Astrolabe can sue, or if ACS has to be the one suing. I'll leave that to copyright lawyers, or somebody with more time than I to look at the relevant bits of US copyright law, to answer.

I believe that this is similar to the case of recipes (cooking).

You can't copyright a recipe: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html:

Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients. Nor does it protect other mere listings of ingredients such as those found in formulas, compounds, or prescriptions. Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.

Do you know any facts of this case? As I explained in numerous other posts to you and in the summary judgement, Psystar made modifications then mass installed their modified copies onto non-Apple machines:

The copies at issue here were not lawfully manufactured with the authorization of the copyright owner. As stated, Psystar made an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X from a Mac mini that was placed onto an "imaging station" and then used a "master copy" to make many more unauthorized copies that were installed on individual Psystar computers. The first-sale defense does not apply to those unauthorized copies.

Even if Psystar had not used a mass install, they still modified OS X and then redistributed it. USC 117(b) says specifically that the copyright owner is the only one that can give permissions to do so:

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

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

I've shown you the law that supports my argument; now you show me the law that makes all sales of used books with notes in the margin illegal.

Where did you show that? Also you said was [citation needed]. If you knew even the tiniest bit about copyright you would have known about USC 117.

No it doesn't. Apple attempted to dictate terms of use; the GPL attempts to dictate terms of distribution of copies. As I've been attempting over and over to explain to you, they are not the same thing!

What part of Psystar selling OS X is not "distribution"? Please explain why selling is not distribution but downloading is. As for the GPL, it is based on copyright law which is based on USC 117.

Assuming you bought and installed a separate copy of AIX for each of those boxes, and assuming that those copies were sold as a normal retail transaction (as opposed to an actual negotiated contract where the First Sale Doctrine wouldn't apply), I don't see how IBM could win that suit.

So what you're saying is that no copyright owner can control the distribution of their own works? First Sale Doctrine does not apply to modified and redistributed works which is clearly spelled out in USC 117(b):

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

If copyright owners cannot do so, then copyright has no meaning. If that isn't clear after I've tried to explain that a dozen times, you are completely dense.

What do you do now?

You get your law school buddies on the phone. One of them knows alumni who are lobbying in DC. You get them to write a law making it illegal to dispense robot-assisted legal services. To, ya know, protect the public. Then you slip the law as an amendment into the Turnip Calibration and Uniformization Act of 2012, and important 450-page text regulating the color, texture, size and water content of turnip for sale in the US that will be passed at 3 AM during the electoral campaign, and that nobody will bother to touch, much less read.

If you think I am joking, look at the way the MAFIAA got artists to work for free: they slipped an amendment in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999 that turns most new recordings into work-for-hire jobs where the studio owns the copyright.

The exact same thing happened when will-writing software started to appear. The call to ban was not very effective -- only family law practitioners were threatened, after all. But if you threaten the very income of trial lawyers, they'll be surprisingly effective at quashing the threat.

What about sites where users/visitors can put content?

Sites to which subscribers contribute material are covered by the OCILLA safe harbor, codified as 17 USC 512.

What if because a comment or link of an (potentially anonymous) user you get sued somewhere

In that case, I'd be not liable under U.S. copyright law unless I had first received and ignored a takedown request. But the limitation on liability appears to apply only to material contributed by a subscriber, not material contributed by the operator of the site.

Same with free speech. Why do you think you should be able to say that? None of your damn business.

The historic argument for free speech is that regulation of political speech has led to abusive governance.

The makers of the major video game consoles don't even want there to be a public discussion "about whether you should be *allowed* to do so". They might try to preempt such discussion by arguing that there is already an open alternative to video game consoles, namely gaming PCs. The existence of such an open platform thus lessens "the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has" under 17 USC 1201(a)(1)(C) and takes away the pressing need to jailbreak consoles.

Furthermore, they might argue under 1201(a)(1)(E) that the authority of the Librarian of Congress to make exemptions extends only to 1201(a)(1), and thus only Congress, not the Librarian of Congress, has the authority to grant exemptions involving circumvention devices under 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b). And Congress is already thoroughly bought by the entertainment industry, which controls the media through which candidates are promoted.

The problem with that may be in the definition of "published". If someone posts in a USENET newsgroup about a great piece of software that they invented, is that considered "published" and therefore enought to prevent someone else from patenting it?

If patent law does not define publication, a judge must look elsewhere in the U.S. Code. For example, a judge might look at how publication is defined for works of authorship, namely distribution of copies of a work to the public, and consider an invention "published" if its description in a published work teaches one with ordinary skill in the art to replicate the invention.