Slashdot Mirror

There is actually precedent that has determined that recipes--at least, lists of ingredients and/or instructions for preparing them--are not copyrightable. Point of interest, but jokes are not copyrightable also. (Though a specific performance of those jokes can be.)

Reference

VERY interesting talk about making money in industries that are exempt from copyright, specifically the fashion industry.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

"Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients."

U.S. Copyright Office - Recipes

From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/, under Chapter 1:

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

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

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

Fair use is one of the later sections, but fair use does not include a complete copy made for personal use. So, yes, copyright law does appear to make it illegal to "copy for your own use", since the author has the exclusive right to "do and authorize" reproduction of the work.

But then, IANAL, and there may be a small clause in one of the exemption sections that does make it legal.

A list of ingredients and instructions for using them, just like rules for games or instructions for building a bird house do not generally qualify as "substantial literary expression" and generally are not completely "original works of authorship", and thus enjoy significantly decreased copyright protection.

No. The ingredients and sequence of adding them are not copyrightable. A bare set of instructions for combining ingredients or building a bird house are effectively not copyrightable (merger doctrine). An expressively explained article on how to make the food item from start to finish, or similarly explained and illustrated instructions on how to build the bird house, are quite copyrightable. When they are copied exactly there's not much of an argument to save you. You might want to look here.

However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

Similarly, the rules for a game, if you're referring to the logical expression of what can or cannot be done, cannot be copyrighted. However, an expressively explained and/or illustrated description of the rules quite certainly can be. The expressive aspects of the game itself are quite clearly copyrightable. See In Mirage Editions, Inc. v. Albuquerque A.R.T. Co., 856 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir. 1988).

Not having read the article at all, I will weigh in anyway.

From 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.

Only original works of authorship are protected by copyright. “Original” means that an author produced a work by his or her own intellectual effort instead of copying it from an existing work."

Thus, it is probably pretty difficult to wield copyright law (in the USA) to prevent someone from republishing your recipe. At the very least you will need to show it contains "substantial literary expression" and was developed without building on an existing work. Rules for games and instructions for processes are also not easily protected by copyright laws.

More from the copyright office:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

it will put this company in an interesting spot for copyright violations - as they are inherently making derivative works on the fly and distributing them, all without permission.

None of which is actionable infringement as I understand United States law. See 17 USC 512(a) and (b), titled "Limitations on liability relating to material online: transitory digital network communications and system caching". This was added to copyright law as part of the DMCA in 1998.

if you read it i'm pretty sure they are going to violate #4

"(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and"

unless they plan on launching a new process for every connection to the same video and trans coding it every single time (aka zero caching)

but just the fact they are trans-coding means they are violating #5

"(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content."

yea.. this definitely doesn't meet that requirement.. so they don't fall under this.

it will put this company in an interesting spot for copyright violations - as they are inherently making derivative works on the fly and distributing them, all without permission.

None of which is actionable infringement as I understand United States law. See 17 USC 512(a) and (b), titled "Limitations on liability relating to material online: transitory digital network communications and system caching". This was added to copyright law as part of the DMCA in 1998.

Please stop repeating falsehoods.

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

Copying software into memory or disk as part of using it is explicitly allowed under copyright law.

Under copyright law, copying programs into memory to use them, while 'making a copy', is not violating copyright.

Jesus Christ, you're the second idiot who's internalized the justification for EULA from 1985 or whenever and replies to my posts.

Read the goddamn law:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

Not only can you copy into memory, but you an copy onto disk, you can copy software where the hell you need to copy in order run the software.

Wow, look at that. How does it feel, knowing you're repeating deliberate lies intended to screw people out of something copyright law allows?

For your phone you can "jailbreak" in order to install non-pirated software or connect to a different carrier.

For your xbox you can "jailbreak" to investigate security flaws. Note that "running homebrew software" is not investigating security flaws, neither is running pirated software.

The Library of Congress gets to make this stuff up: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Accessibility for us disabled folks will be an artificial extra cost, to satisfy the imaginary property brigade who think text-to-speech isn't a right.

It is a right. Even U.S. imaginary property law appears to preserve this right.

ripping it and putting the music in .mp3 format on your iPod is Fair Use

You are misusing the term "Fair Use". This is a very basic explanation: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Note, I am not claiming you are breaking laws by ripping your CDs(*), and of course I do it with my CDs too. But using the wrong legal justification is not helpful.

(*) Though you can't rip your CDs then sell the CDs, and continue to use the ripped versions. Even having someone using the CDs at home while you were listening to the ripped versions is making use of two copies of them.

There are penalties for false DMCA claims but no one goes after the abusers. This should have been established up front and tremendous penalties should be levied against those making false claims. The impact of a false claim has a much larger impact than some individual violating copyrighted materials, IMHO.

There are penalties for false DMCA claims. But unlike the rest of the DMCA which enumerates copious numbers of fines and jail time for different types of copyright infringement, the penalties for false DMCA claims is extraordinarily terse. So terse that I can quote it in full here:

Section 512(f) of the DMCA:

(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.

So basically, your liability for filing a false DMCA takedown notice is limited to paying the other guys' attorney fees, and any damages they suffered. If it's a video that wasn't posted in order to make money (such as this one, whose purpose was educational), then the damages suffered are zero. That section of the law really needs to be beefed up with penalties proportionate to those for knowingly infringing.

Well, I don't think you understand my objection to your position. I'm not interested in splitting hairs over what 'intent' means.

Prior to the DMCA, copyright did already apply to not-for-profit copying; I don't know where you're getting information to the contrary, but making a profit from your copy was never a required element of infringement in U.S. copyright law.

Have a look over the first Federal Copyright Statue of the United States of America; can you point out where it says anything about non-commercial copying being exempt?

Sorry, snipped too much, also:

"""
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
""" - http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

I suspect you are still going to have a hard time fitting a PS3 acting as media server into that...

The DMCA exception in question is:

"""
(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.
""" - http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Please explain how jailbreaking your PS3 to use as a PC/media server fits into that?

The US Copyright Office periodically publishes an exclusive list of permitted exceptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. Unlocking a phone is on the list. Unlocking a video game console for this purpose isn't.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

I think you should be able to do it. The DMCA is a pile of shit. There's no good reason why uses of hardware that don't involve copyright infringement or unauthorized network access should be prohibited,

the reference to the DMCA is

At the very least arguable. The "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA (absent which, an ISP is per se liable for copyright infringement, at least under pre-DMCA precedent, see, e.g., Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552, 1559 (M.D. Fla., 1993)) apply only to the extent an ISP "has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers." 17 U.S.C. 512(i)(1)(A). http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Does the DMCA offer any immunity to civil lawsuits for damages resulting from a [false/abusive] DMCA takedown notice?

Per Title 17, United States Code, section 512, the service provider (e.g. YouTube) is immune to liability for the required two-week downtime after receipt of the counter-notification (512(g)(1)). But the complaining copyright owner is not immune (Lenz v. Universal).

I really had to read this for myself:

US Copyright Law: Chapter 5. Statutory damages

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) 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. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

(Watch me get sued for copying legal text verbatim)

Some thoughts:
- This is all at the discretion of the judge.
- The $200 seems to apply per copyright infringement charge. But what is that unit really? Naturally, the RIAA would say "per song" but even $200 per album seems extreme. Per song? What if a 30-second clip is enough to be a copyright infringement. Can the RIAA claim that a 2 minute song is 4 30-second infringements so that is $200 * 4 = $800? Or... is a 35 second song really 5 overlapping infringements of 30-second clips so that's $200 * 5 = $1000. I don't think this is what the authors of the law intended. Could you even buy individual tracks when this law was written?

The Librarian of Congress has announced the classes of works subject to the exemption from the prohibition against circumvention

The OP may not have been railing against Amerocentrism so much as expressing his displeasure that you obviously didn't bother looking any of this up, since you're mostly wrong:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/copyright/copyright-realworld/recipe-copyrighting.html

Basically, paraphrase it and you're fine.

---linuxrocks123

And your point is what exactly? Your right to issue subpoenas as a result of the theft of your wallet stems from the conversion tort. The -police's- right to issue subpoenas comes from the petty theft misdemeanor, but that doesn't help you, it only helps them.

Furthermore, there IS a criminal element to downloading "latest_crap_song.mp3". Read the law.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html

Except that they ripped off the "FarmTown" game

As if FarmTown didn't copy Harvest Moon in the first place.

I'm not sure how it isn't a total copyright violation

From US Copyright Office publication FL108: "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. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form."

Copyright infringement for no financial gain (by which I mean, not selling the copied works) is part of the civil law, as opposed to the criminal law.

Actually, that isn't true in the US. See US code title 17 section 506. It's also criminal if you distribute infringing works with a total value over $1000 in 6 months [506(a)(1)(B)] or if you distribute a pre-release work to the public on a computer network [506(a)(1)(C)]. The punishments in title 18 section 2319 seem to hinge on whether the retail value of the copies exceeds $1000. If it does you can go to jail for up to 10 years. Otherwise, your jail time will be under a year.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html

No, the fucked up legal system finally sorted that "its a copy" one out and expressly made making a necessary copy (e.g. into RAM, or onto a hard drive) legal.

Unfortunately, the dumbasses in Congress wrote "the owner of a computer program" in that law, and "licensees" aren't owners, so you get a whole new bullshit can of worms arguing semantics when intent is crystal clear and it's back to court to argue whether you're actually allowed to use the software you buy. It's disgusting.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

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

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#105 It's not copyrighted.

Not true. In this case, it'd be a work for hire, and the copyright would rest with the company that paid the authors, not the authors itself.

Not necessarily. It's only a "work [made] for hire" if the coders were employed by the company (not independent contractors), or the work falls into a narrowly defined category of things that *can* be explicitly made works for hire.

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

I think you are correct. See below exert:

How do I protect my recipe?
A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records. See FL 122, Recipes.

Source: U.S. Copyright office

Last month, the US Copyright Office ruled that publishers must permit text-to-speech in eBooks, although they have the option to charge more for speech-enabled versions. The Copyright Office's rule will stay in place for at least three years. This is most likely the reason why the Authors Guild hasn't protested. Here's the link: http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html .

Since last year the LOC has made a rule that DRM breaks are legal if readers are shut out:

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book's read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

Go ahead and try to break Amazon's DRM to help blind people -- the government has your back (see point (6)).

Yes, DMCA is a nightmare for the blind. Fortunately, there is an exception. See point (6).

I'd like to see how such a cease-and-desist notice might be worded. From the summary: "It includes no AACS keys". From the article: "this project doesn't offer any key or certificate that could be used to decode encrypted copyrighted material." So without the player keys, it's not a complete circumvention device but instead an encryption research project, exempt under 17 USC 1201(g). And even if it did have keys, the interoperability exemption in 1201(f) combined with the fair use exemption that the Register of Copyrights recently enacted for three years might save it.

Really? I thought they were just a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Such a dreamer you are.

News flash: Copyright existed, and should exist, to allow an individual to profit from their creation. It has not a damned thing to do with producing useful art. The production of useful art is a result of the desire to PROFIT.

News flash: you're an uninformed troll who's never read what Copyright exists for.

Copyright is designed to create a temporary monetary gain to encourage the creation of works for the greater good in the public domain.

Copyright is not an implicit human right, its an artificial incentive to allow artists to gain renumeration for their efforts for a limited time. Go do a bit of public domain reading yourself. From copyright.gov:

August 18, 1787
James Madison submitted to the framers of the Constitution a provision “to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time.”

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce

For sound recordings and only for sound recordings, Congress delegated this to the states in 1972. 17 USC 301(c).

So a state law seems to override a federal law.

The federal law, 17 USC 301(c), explicitly allows state laws to override it.

In that case, a (distant) argument under a foreign counterpart to fair use law could be made. Please explain any substantial negative "effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" in a region where authentic copies are not available. Or what does the corresponding statute in Brazil and Argentina say?

read it again.

It doesn't say noncommercial videos are ok, it says that if you break DRM solely to incorporate short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, AND it's non-commercial, it's ok.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Would it make sense to REQUIRE all book publishers to publish extra copies in braille for example?

No, but it makes sense to require book publishers to grant copyright licenses to Braille publishers and to publishers of audio books designed specifically for players available only to blind people. 17 USC 121.

The DMCA only really applies when you distribute copies after circumventing copy protection. If you keep them to yourself, you are operating within the bounds of fair use and the legal protections for reverse engineering and interoperability.

The DMCA as codified at 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) pretty clearly states:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Fair use, arguably, does not apply to section 1201. Fair use, as codified at 17 U.S.C. 107, reads:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Note that section 1201 is a prohibition against circumvention of a technological measure, while fair use is a defense against infringement. If you don't think there's a difference, you're not a lawyer ;)

The DMCA only really applies when you distribute copies after circumventing copy protection. If you keep them to yourself, you are operating within the bounds of fair use and the legal protections for reverse engineering and interoperability.

The DMCA as codified at 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A) pretty clearly states:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Fair use, arguably, does not apply to section 1201. Fair use, as codified at 17 U.S.C. 107, reads:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Note that section 1201 is a prohibition against circumvention of a technological measure, while fair use is a defense against infringement. If you don't think there's a difference, you're not a lawyer ;)

The new rule holds that amateur creators do not violate the DMCA when they use short excerpts from DVDs in order to create new, noncommercial works for purposes of criticism or comment if they believe that circumvention is necessary to fulfill that purpose.

However, the video makers may be still be infringing copyrights if their use of the video from the DVD is not fair use.

The important part here, I think, is that noncommercial video producers will be able to defend against both a DMCA anti-circumvention suit and a normal infringement suit with a fair use defense. Used to be that the DMCA anti-circumvention rule arguably wasn't subject to the fair use doctrine as codified at 17 U.S.C. 107; since the new exemption is very close to the rules for fair use, a successful fair use defense would very likely also defeat a DMCA claim.

An example of a noncommercial, commentary or criticism use of a copyrighted video that is not fair use might be the inclusion of a few minutes of video for a movie that hasn't yet been released. Under Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the Supreme Court found that a review containing a few important excerpts of a book that had not yet been released was a copyright infringement and did not have a fair use defense. This could easily be extended to movie reviews (at least, for direct to DVD movies).

The copyright office's exemptions absolutely have the effect of changing what is legal, because the DMCA says so.

True. The DMCA, as codified, states at 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(D):

The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in sub-paragraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

So, the Librarian of Congress can exempt any class of works from this section of the DMCA, based on a regulatory rule-making process, which is defined in 1201(a)(1)(C). Which I won't quote, but you can read for yourself here.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

1. (1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

1. (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

1. (ii) Documentary filmmaking;

(

1. iii) Noncommercial videos.

(

1. 2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

1. 3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

1. (4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

1. (i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and

1. (ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

1. (5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(

1. 6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

They made a copy of the software from disk to ram to run it.

Which is not an infringement under U.S. law: 17 USC 117.