Slashdot Mirror

The term "digital" for paid downloads appears to come from a generalization of "digital phonorecord delivery", a term of art in U.S copyright law. The statute, 17 USC 115, recognizes a compulsory license for making distributing a "phonorecord" (copy of a sound recording) of a musical work, intended to allow for cover versions with the payment of an appropriate royalty. It defines "digital phonorecord delivery" so as to distinguish a permanent download from an ephemeral download associated with streaming, as their royalty structures differ.

ISPs are required by the DMCA to have a repeat infringer termination policy and to follow that policy. The exact subtext that lays out this requirement reads: "[for an ISP to be eligible for limited liability status]...it must adopt and reasonably implement a policy of terminating in appropriate circumstances the accounts of subscribers who are repeat infringers," I propose this as a layman's version of that policy:

"If a court of law issues multiple judgments (or multiple counts in a single judgment) against you that find you guilty of copyright infringement, and finds that those acts of copyright infringement were performed while directly using our services for access, your high-speed internet account with us will be terminated immediately. DMCA takedown notices are considered to be unproven allegations and will not be treated as proof of infringement without the previously mentioned court order being provided."

This appropriately balances the interests of the rightsholders and the alleged infringers while following the requirement set forth in the DMCA. A DMCA takedown notice has never constituted proof of infringement; they exist to have allegedly infringing content taken down quickly and a process exists by which the affected person can challenge the notice and force the rightsholders into court if they still want it taken down. The entire problem here is that DMCA takedown notices are being treated as having equal legal weight to a court judgment of copyright infringement when that's clearly not the case.

I wish someone would email this suggestion to the ISPs so they could implement it and make this stupid crap go away already. If the ISPs did this, rightsholders would be forced to support their allegations in court to disconnect alleged infringers rather than expecting their completely unproven and potentially baseless say-so to automatically result in a permanent disconnection.

Fair use allows using parts of copyrighted works without permission for the purpose of reviews, or when only a small portion of the copyrighted work is used, or how transformative the use is (are you just regurgitating the copyrighted work, or using part of it to create something entirely new).

Unfortunately, Youtube's demonitization policy completely ignores fair use. If you use a 5 second snippet of a copyrighted song in your 15 minute video, the copyright holder can get your video demonitized (all the money the video makes goes to them instead of to you). At the very least, the system should limit the demonitization to the duration of the copyrighted clip, so 5 seconds of a song in a 15 minute video only results in the song copyright holder getting just 0.6% of the ad revenue.

The DMCA provides for anyone hit by a false claim to be entitled to "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." ( 17 USC 512(f)(2) ).

The primary problem as I see it isn't that there's no penalty, but rather that it's not enforced. The government is quick to bring the hammer down on infringers, but getting them to enforce the *rest* of the DMCA is often an exercise in frustration. Having said that, the DMCA also requires that the service provider's designated agent be notified (IN WRITING, and in a rather specific way) that the takedown notice was not valid before the government will do anything, and many people don't take that necessary step. In fairness though, YouTube doesn't make it particularly easy to do that.

For anyone that may be interested, YouTube's designated agent is:

Copyright Operations
YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave
San Bruno, CA 94066
Phone: 650-214-3010
Email: copyright@youtube.com

Other U.S. designated agents can be found here. Click on "Search the Directory" at the top right of the page. Per 17 USC 512(g)(3), the required information is:

(A) A physical or electronic signature of the subscriber.
(B) Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled.
(C) A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
(D) The subscriber’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.

Now the tricky thing here, to me, is that company have successfully argued that even if someone buys stuff, that certain parts of the machine is not under the control of the person who purchased the thing

It isn't tricky at all. US copyright law simply doesn't work that way.

Title 17, chapter 1, section 109:
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

"Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord"

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

So long as an instance of a copy is obtained legally, aka via government auction of impounded property, then the buyer can resell or dispose of that one instance of the copy.
They are only prohibited from making further copies of it.

So you are legally entitled to resell your purchase bird scooter, copyrighted software and all.
You are legally entitled to rip the copyrighted software out of the device, as in to replace it with your own software such as described here.
You are always entitled to the right to modify your instance of a copy, so long as it isn't distributed, which is perfectly in line with what is happening here.

No authorization from the copyright holder is needed for any of those things outside of redistribution (and public performance, which doesn't apply here to software)

No, they weren't. Per Copyright circular #3, notice was required with either a (C) mark for all visually perceptible copies of a non-auditory work or a (P) mark for phonorecords up until March 1, 1989, for works made in the United States, and anything published without a notice is considered to be in the public domain. (There are a few rare exceptions for works published after 1978, mostly involving situations where only a few copies were distributed without notice, where the notice was removed without the permission of the copyright holder, etc., but AFAIK, those works were not retroactively protected.)

AFAIK, the only retroactive additions or reinstatements of copyright have involved works originally created overseas. For example, NAFTA allowed copyright protection for works published without notice to works created in Canada or Mexico between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989, and GATT/URAA retroactively restored/added copyright protection in the U.S. for works published overseas that were previously not recognized in the U.S.

If you distribute or otherwise publish your copyrighted material without a copyright mark or statement of copyright, you just granted full license to the public domain to do anything they want with it.

Hasn't been true for almost 30 years, so good luck with that.

IP lawyer.

It is a felony, and it is inexcusable that hurting the profits of a company is a criminal issue.

17 U.S.C. s. 1204(a)

> Copying is stealing someone's time and effort, copying and giving it away is no different.

1. You keep using this word "steal". It doesn't mean what you think it does. The original author STILL has their effort.

2. FTFY: Copying is DUPLICATING someone's effort for almost zero time. Whether it is LEGAL or ILLEGAL depends.

3. /sarcasm Who knew that copying Linux was stealing Linus' time ! Oh wait, you meant "illegal copying", because LEGAL COPYING granted by GPL, BSD, Public Domain, etc. is perfectly fine.

4. Furthermore, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act., one IS allowed to backup their software until the DMCA hijacked that right.

5. /sarcasm Wait till you find out about Project Gutenberg -- one can read over 57,000 books! /sarcasm Look at ALL that IP theft!

> Intellectual property is no different than anything else.

FALSE

Copyright is an ARTIFICIAL monopoly; it was created BY publishers to stop OTHER publishers from profiting.

> The majority of human civilization feels intellectual property does have value.

Appeal to Popularity fallacy. Quantity != Quality.

The majority of human civilization also tolerated slavery, racism, and prohibition at one time. That doesn't imply the majority was right.

e.g. Billions are served at McDonalds; that doesn't imply that McDonalds serves gourmet food. They served cheap, crap food, until recently.

This is the most retarded argument for IP I've seen in a while. You do realize we have ONE concept of imaginary property: delusion thinking. Of course things like language, math and history, that's FIRST private knowledge, then EVENTUALLY becomes public knowledge.

The EULA is the only way you have any rights to the software *at all*.

Without a EULA, the software would be subject to the statutory rules of software copyright. In the United States, these rules carve out exceptions for the owner of a lawfully made copy to do the following:

- resell that copy (17 USC 109);
- copy the software into RAM to execute it (17 USC 117(a)(1)); and
- make private backup copies, but not distribute those copies to others (17 USC 117(a)(2)).

The EULA is the only way you have any rights to the software *at all*.

Without a EULA, the software would be subject to the statutory rules of software copyright. In the United States, these rules carve out exceptions for the owner of a lawfully made copy to do the following:

- resell that copy (17 USC 109);
- copy the software into RAM to execute it (17 USC 117(a)(1)); and
- make private backup copies, but not distribute those copies to others (17 USC 117(a)(2)).

The EULA is the only way you have any rights to the software *at all*.

Without a EULA, the software would be subject to the statutory rules of software copyright. In the United States, these rules carve out exceptions for the owner of a lawfully made copy to do the following:

- resell that copy (17 USC 109);
- copy the software into RAM to execute it (17 USC 117(a)(1)); and
- make private backup copies, but not distribute those copies to others (17 USC 117(a)(2)).

Get ready for another reversal: Unless created by a direct employee (someone who gets a W2 form from you at the end of the year) "works made for hire" must fall under one of 9 categories established under the law. If the work doesn't fit in to one of the nine, it doesn't matter what the contract says: the copyright vests in the company that made it not the company that paid.

https://www.copyright.gov/circ...

Bethesda hopes Behaviour's work is a "contribution to a collective work" but generally that means a -small- contribution like one article for an encyclopedia.

Here's the lesson: don't write a contract which says you own the contractors work. The law may contradict you. Write a contract which says the contractor agrees to assign you all rights to their work. That's enforceable in court.

If I understand correctly game ideas cannot be copyrighted in the USA. No idea about South Korea

https://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf

If they're going to use copyright law to make maintenance illegal, then the free warranty should be 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation. That is how long they are demanding that it be illegal for you to repair your items.

Good point.

All these manufacturers that want to ban right to repair laws should be forced to provide a minimum of five years warranty repair on any hardware, and seven years guaranteed continuous software updates.

WTF?! From what orifice did you pull those arbitrary numbers from?

If they're going to use copyright law to make maintenance illegal, then the free warranty should be 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation. That is how long they are demanding that it be illegal for you to repair your items. Once the copyright on the firmware (or whatever bullshit it is) expires, then circumventing the DRM ceases to be prohibited by DMCA and the warranty can end.

But think about it, how an I buy your database (schema) and drop all data, put in my own data, without infringing copyright, if the schema would be copyrighted?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you purchase a database from someone, how you can legally use that database depends entirely on the agreement you made to purchase it. If you copy and reuse the schema in some way that is not allowed by the agreement, then yes, you can be liable for copyright infringement. If you only do things that are explicitly allowed by the agreement, then of course you aren't liable for infringement, since you were given permission to do those things. This situation isn't specific to databases, though; it would apply to any protected work that you purchase.

DCMA has a very specific clause that blocks copyright on ABANDONWARE.

I was about to write that it must be a drug-induced hallucination, because there's absolutely nothing like that in the DMCA itself. But there's a clause in section 1201(a)(1) that lets the Librarian of Congress create exceptions and apparently in 2015 they apparently granted a very narrow exception valid for three years with the possibility for renewal. I'll quote most from the prelude not the actual legalese but you can find both in the final order here:

With respect to gamers, the Register concluded that the record supported granting an exemption for video games that require communication with an authentication server to allow gameplay when the requisite server is taken offline. (...) At the same time, the Register determined that proponents had failed to provide persuasive support for an exemption for online multiplayer play (...) The Register also confirmed that the exemption for gamers should not extend to jailbreaking of console software

So it's only video games, not copyrighted works in general. It's only single player games, no MMORPGs or alternative match-making. While the quoted text uses the word "online" there's no provision for networked games at all so no private servers and no LAN play. It does not let you break system-level protections like jailbreak consoles. The wording is a bit ambiguous on patches/DLC but since they're in their nature downloads I think it would be fair game to remove activation from those too. There doesn't seem to be any provision for providing those to others though if the update servers have been shut down, you only get to keep what you already have locally. So it's as narrow as possible, if it's a single-player game on a PC requiring a one-time activation you can disable it. Which IMHO all non-dick companies should do anyway before they shut down the activation server. That's all you get, clearly this project is not covered by this exemption at all.

P.S. You should also be careful to only distribute such a patch within the US. It's a uniquely American law and there's no telling what could happen in other jurisdictions...

I thought some artist copyrighted blank canvas. But found this, saying, blank space is not copyrightable. https://www.copyright.gov/circ...

But it isn't illegal unless you are making unlicensed copies commercially.

No, not really. Whether the usage is commercial is one of the tests as to whether the fair use doctrine applies or not but it isn't an absolute. Nature and Character of the usage is the fair use touchstone under test when commercialness is considered. But just because the copy wasn't commercially made when it was downloaded (which is when he made a copy of the file) and not in a way that the holder consented to, doesn't make it OK.

Another way to put it, just because the usage is noncommercial does not mean actionable infringement didn't happen. Source: https://www.copyright.gov/fair...

And you are also incorrect that the download was not fair use. Fair use is a *defense* against having infringed. Fair Use doesn't really apply until legal action is commenced against you, but people make sure they have a fair use defense before copying.

By not paying for the additional copy (or having the copyright holder's permission to make a copy by downloading) the OP did indeed break copyright law. Format shifting is not recognized legally. He found a copy not legal to be distribute and downloaded it. That's pretty much it.

Now will a court find it actionable? Probably not. But it could.

"For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author's identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author's life plus 70 years)."

from copyright.gov

The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to establish a patent office, and copyright law. (Article I Section 8. Clause 8 ) -"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

so from a conceptual standpoint, if you write something and never publish it (at least in the United States) it is still covered by copyright during your lifetime no matter what you do. It is not possible for an individual to place something in the public domain - but you can give away your work if you like (conceptually the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" - maybe?)

It is important to remember that there are no "copyright police" enforcing copyright law en masse. If you create something (e.g. novel, song, software) and it is covered by copyright - it is your responsibility to protect your copyright. A very good way of proving that you created something is to register a copyright (for example in the United States) - then if someone steals your work, you can whip out your registration and prove you created it

while I'm bloviating - from an academic standpoint there is an obvious difference between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement." If I take a play by William Shakespeare, change the title and slap my name on it, then present it as my own original work - I have committed plagiarism, but not copyright infringement (since Willie's been dead for 400 years and all of his works are in the public domain)

"For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author's identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author's life plus 70 years)."

from copyright.gov

The U.S. Constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to establish a patent office, and copyright law. (Article I Section 8. Clause 8 ) -"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

so from a conceptual standpoint, if you write something and never publish it (at least in the United States) it is still covered by copyright during your lifetime no matter what you do. It is not possible for an individual to place something in the public domain - but you can give away your work if you like (conceptually the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech" - maybe?)

It is important to remember that there are no "copyright police" enforcing copyright law en masse. If you create something (e.g. novel, song, software) and it is covered by copyright - it is your responsibility to protect your copyright. A very good way of proving that you created something is to register a copyright (for example in the United States) - then if someone steals your work, you can whip out your registration and prove you created it

while I'm bloviating - from an academic standpoint there is an obvious difference between "plagiarism" and "copyright infringement." If I take a play by William Shakespeare, change the title and slap my name on it, then present it as my own original work - I have committed plagiarism, but not copyright infringement (since Willie's been dead for 400 years and all of his works are in the public domain)

In fact the only mention of the word "ownership" in copyright law is in the paragraph stating all works under copyright are the inheritance of the public to own, once the copyright term has expired.

Actually, at 30 mentions of owners and ownership in Title 17, Chapter 2 alone, you are dead wrong:
https://www.copyright.gov/titl...:

Read all of the laws there. You will find plenty more mentions. And in case you try to backpedal and amend your statement, since the term is used to describe the copyright itself, and not the work, you can find the term "owner of a work" and "ownership of a work" in multiple official documents associated with our government's various copyright bodies:
https://www.federalregister.go...
https://www.copyright.gov/docs...
https://www.copyright.gov/poli...

I'm not saying I agree with US copyright law, but lets get our facts straight. Your conclusions may (or may not) be valid, but that particular argument regarding legal wording is so wrong that I have to wonder if you've even read these laws.

Bonus: Contrary to your main argument, DCMA *does* in fact prohibit actions involving circumvention of copyright--many of which are actions taken for personal use, say, displaying a legitimate copy of a video from a computer by illegally circumventing HDCP or the like. This is absurd, but that's how the law was written, and I doubt it was put there by accident.

In fact the only mention of the word "ownership" in copyright law is in the paragraph stating all works under copyright are the inheritance of the public to own, once the copyright term has expired.

Actually, at 30 mentions of owners and ownership in Title 17, Chapter 2 alone, you are dead wrong:
https://www.copyright.gov/titl...:

Read all of the laws there. You will find plenty more mentions. And in case you try to backpedal and amend your statement, since the term is used to describe the copyright itself, and not the work, you can find the term "owner of a work" and "ownership of a work" in multiple official documents associated with our government's various copyright bodies:
https://www.federalregister.go...
https://www.copyright.gov/docs...
https://www.copyright.gov/poli...

I'm not saying I agree with US copyright law, but lets get our facts straight. Your conclusions may (or may not) be valid, but that particular argument regarding legal wording is so wrong that I have to wonder if you've even read these laws.

Bonus: Contrary to your main argument, DCMA *does* in fact prohibit actions involving circumvention of copyright--many of which are actions taken for personal use, say, displaying a legitimate copy of a video from a computer by illegally circumventing HDCP or the like. This is absurd, but that's how the law was written, and I doubt it was put there by accident.

In fact the only mention of the word "ownership" in copyright law is in the paragraph stating all works under copyright are the inheritance of the public to own, once the copyright term has expired.

Actually, at 30 mentions of owners and ownership in Title 17, Chapter 2 alone, you are dead wrong:
https://www.copyright.gov/titl...:

Read all of the laws there. You will find plenty more mentions. And in case you try to backpedal and amend your statement, since the term is used to describe the copyright itself, and not the work, you can find the term "owner of a work" and "ownership of a work" in multiple official documents associated with our government's various copyright bodies:
https://www.federalregister.go...
https://www.copyright.gov/docs...
https://www.copyright.gov/poli...

I'm not saying I agree with US copyright law, but lets get our facts straight. Your conclusions may (or may not) be valid, but that particular argument regarding legal wording is so wrong that I have to wonder if you've even read these laws.

Bonus: Contrary to your main argument, DCMA *does* in fact prohibit actions involving circumvention of copyright--many of which are actions taken for personal use, say, displaying a legitimate copy of a video from a computer by illegally circumventing HDCP or the like. This is absurd, but that's how the law was written, and I doubt it was put there by accident.

You DO own your ideas. At least for a period of time.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Additionally
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art-
(1) shall have the right-
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

Claim authorship, not ownership, authorship.

A copyright holder can claim they HAD the idea, they have no right in law to claim OWNERSHIP of an idea.

Also of note
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.html

Sec. 113. (a) The Librarian of Congress (hereinafter referred to as the âoeLibrarÂianâ) shall establish and maintain in the Library of Congress a library to be known as the American Television and Radio Archives (hereinafter referred to as the âoeArchivesâ). The purpose of the Archives shall be to preserve a permanent record of the television and radio programs which are the heritage of the people of the United States and to provide access to such programs to historians and scholars without encouraging or causing copyright infringement.

There is a cost to place a work under copyright protection, it is not free.
That cost is after copyright expires, that work belongs to the people of the USA.

So many copyright holders behaved criminally by trying to not make their payment for copyright protection that was delivered. They have stolen what belongs to the people of this country.

You claimed elsewhere that we aren't talking about 100+ year old movies, but movies released today.
Look back just a bit further and you will see how those copyright holders fucked this up for themselves.

If you keep writing bad checks to me over and over, of course in the future I will stop accepting those checks.
After every last existing studio has refused to make a single payment for their older copyrighted works, why would it be shocking that I wouldn't expect payment now, and why would it be surprising if I stop accepting their bad checks and affording them any protections any longer?

Hell just look at DRM protections using encryption. That's no different than writing a check for your copyright protection with a huge bold "VOID" plastered over it. They not only intend to steal that work from the public it will belong to, but out right say to your face you will never get the payment because fuck you that's why.

That is why current and new works are pirated. You people have a shit-ton of back payments to catch up on before we are going to care about you getting any copyright protection any longer.
Settle up on your debts and perhaps we will talk about granting you a line of credit again to give you copyright protection and trust you will actually pay for it.

You DO own your ideas. At least for a period of time.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Additionally
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art-
(1) shall have the right-
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

Claim authorship, not ownership, authorship.

A copyright holder can claim they HAD the idea, they have no right in law to claim OWNERSHIP of an idea.

Also of note
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.html

Sec. 113. (a) The Librarian of Congress (hereinafter referred to as the âoeLibrarÂianâ) shall establish and maintain in the Library of Congress a library to be known as the American Television and Radio Archives (hereinafter referred to as the âoeArchivesâ). The purpose of the Archives shall be to preserve a permanent record of the television and radio programs which are the heritage of the people of the United States and to provide access to such programs to historians and scholars without encouraging or causing copyright infringement.

There is a cost to place a work under copyright protection, it is not free.
That cost is after copyright expires, that work belongs to the people of the USA.

So many copyright holders behaved criminally by trying to not make their payment for copyright protection that was delivered. They have stolen what belongs to the people of this country.

You claimed elsewhere that we aren't talking about 100+ year old movies, but movies released today.
Look back just a bit further and you will see how those copyright holders fucked this up for themselves.

If you keep writing bad checks to me over and over, of course in the future I will stop accepting those checks.
After every last existing studio has refused to make a single payment for their older copyrighted works, why would it be shocking that I wouldn't expect payment now, and why would it be surprising if I stop accepting their bad checks and affording them any protections any longer?

Hell just look at DRM protections using encryption. That's no different than writing a check for your copyright protection with a huge bold "VOID" plastered over it. They not only intend to steal that work from the public it will belong to, but out right say to your face you will never get the payment because fuck you that's why.

That is why current and new works are pirated. You people have a shit-ton of back payments to catch up on before we are going to care about you getting any copyright protection any longer.
Settle up on your debts and perhaps we will talk about granting you a line of credit again to give you copyright protection and trust you will actually pay for it.

You DO own your ideas. At least for a period of time.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

Additionally
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art-
(1) shall have the right-
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and

Claim authorship, not ownership, authorship.

A copyright holder can claim they HAD the idea, they have no right in law to claim OWNERSHIP of an idea.

Also of note
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.html

Sec. 113. (a) The Librarian of Congress (hereinafter referred to as the âoeLibrarÂianâ) shall establish and maintain in the Library of Congress a library to be known as the American Television and Radio Archives (hereinafter referred to as the âoeArchivesâ). The purpose of the Archives shall be to preserve a permanent record of the television and radio programs which are the heritage of the people of the United States and to provide access to such programs to historians and scholars without encouraging or causing copyright infringement.

There is a cost to place a work under copyright protection, it is not free.
That cost is after copyright expires, that work belongs to the people of the USA.

So many copyright holders behaved criminally by trying to not make their payment for copyright protection that was delivered. They have stolen what belongs to the people of this country.

You claimed elsewhere that we aren't talking about 100+ year old movies, but movies released today.
Look back just a bit further and you will see how those copyright holders fucked this up for themselves.

If you keep writing bad checks to me over and over, of course in the future I will stop accepting those checks.
After every last existing studio has refused to make a single payment for their older copyrighted works, why would it be shocking that I wouldn't expect payment now, and why would it be surprising if I stop accepting their bad checks and affording them any protections any longer?

Hell just look at DRM protections using encryption. That's no different than writing a check for your copyright protection with a huge bold "VOID" plastered over it. They not only intend to steal that work from the public it will belong to, but out right say to your face you will never get the payment because fuck you that's why.

That is why current and new works are pirated. You people have a shit-ton of back payments to catch up on before we are going to care about you getting any copyright protection any longer.
Settle up on your debts and perhaps we will talk about granting you a line of credit again to give you copyright protection and trust you will actually pay for it.

The Statute is accurate - The current abuse of this Statute is not: Article 1 Section 8, DOES say "by securing for a limited time", right? Well limited is NOT a hundred years! It should be around 10 years. Copyrights served a very useful purpose in the past.. They allowed the maker of the copyrighted object to recoup the research money that he/she invested in it.. Excerpt: The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its creation and gives it a term lasting for the author's life plus an additional 70 years. Source: Third Paragraph - https://www.copyright.gov/circ... [copyright.gov]

It's fairly well-established that parody is only a valid defence if the thing itself is being parodied. If you're not making a parody of Boy's Club or Pepe, then you can't validly claim fair-use parody.

What you're talking about is "satire" (i.e. using the work to criticise something else), which is on shakier grounds, legally, and an active topic of discussion.

An author of a copyrighted work can use a pseudonym or pen name. A work is pseudonymous if the author is identified on copies or phonorecords of the work by a fictitious name. Nicknames and other diminutive forms of legal names are not considered fictitious. Copyright does not protect pseudonyms or other names.

(source)

Too bad your pen name is not a copyrightable entity. Further, too bad that your pseudonym isn't really a pseudonym at all, since it is a diminutive form of your legal name (C. D. are your initials, Reimer is your last name - not particularly inventive, n'est-ce pas?), and thus not considered fictitious.

Your WORK is copyrightable, amateurish and idiotic as it may be. Your NAME is not copyrightable, nor is it a pseudonym. These standards are published by the US Copyright Office - please show your work and explain how you arrive at your claims of "copyright" infringement?

Your ONLY legitimate claim was for violation of Slashdot's TOS. You have NO copyright claim against someone else using the name 'cdreimer' unless they are actually posting material on Slashdot for which you hold the copyrights, and which are not covered by fair use exceptions.

I don't expect you to understand this, but I'm going to keep calling out these bullshit copyright claims whenever I see you make them. Maybe someday, something about this topic will sink into that thick bony sphere you call a skull. Until then, I'll amuse myself by pointing out how ass-backwards WRONG you are, repeatedly.

Grsecurity is an unlicensed derivative work and it's owned in part by the kernel developers because it necessarily includes portions of the original work. The GPL does not apply to it at all.

Those portions of the original work have been licensed to the customers by the GPLv2 sec 6. The license to those portions of the original work cannot be terminated per GPLv2 sec 4. The customer is also expressly licensed to make such a combination by GPLv2 sec. 2 so long as they do not publish or distribute the combined work.

End of story.

They're paying for copies. That's how they become a contributory infringer.

No. Merely purchasing the existing combination of code does not provide the required right and ability to supervise or control the infringing activity. You are well outside the bounds of your expertise, and it shows.

Having not seen the blog, it's hard for me to make a guess about how well it would be considered parody.

You can catch it on archive.org.

It's not parody. It's not vaguely related to parody. Anybody who thinks it's parody desperately needs to bone up on their reading comprehension skills.

It is, however, bona fide commentary and criticism for which the pictures are the obviously essential base element. Very clearly fair use.

https://www.copyright.gov/titl...

"the fair use of a copyrighted work [..] for purposes such as criticism, comment [...] is not an infringement of copyright"

Just leaving what I already wrote on Gizmodo's post here:

Yeeeaaahh.... unfortunately, and specially because of the comments on the matter, I don’t think Wagner has a chance here.

Well, not that I know a whole lot on law, but afaik, fair use only has a chance if she didn’t admit that she was turning a profit on it (directly or indirectly). And even so, photography can be pretty tricky on those matters.... fair use usually won’t stick in cases like this one.

Very rare exceptions for very famous artists with a huge legal team to defend that there was substantial difference in the usage versus the original work... see here: https://www.theverge.com/2015/...

It’s even more damning if MacMansion Hell was making predominant use of Zillow content. Say, if you had a humour website with occasional Zillow content that did not focus solely on satire of their content but more on overall criticism of general architecture found throughout the web, things could be a bit more in the grey... or more accurately, perhaps Zillow going after the blog wouldn’t translate to taking everything down.

But here’s a quote:

Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?

A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.
https://www.copyright.gov/help...

The “willful” part is key, but not in the way most people think of. Claiming ignorance on the law, specifically about copyright, usually does not absolve you. It has more to do with getting bogus licenses, works with unclear status, and chain of command (as in I did this for my publication because they told me they had the rights).

And the thing is... for parodies and satire in fair use, the content infringed must be the direct target of it. Subtle difference, but Wagner wasn’t making satire or parody of the photographers’ work, Zillow’s service, or something in the effect of a criticism of cultural tendency. She was using the work done by others to make... architectural criticism, was it?

Nothing against the blog or Wagner, just my understanding of it. Sounds like it’s best for her to abandon the idea and go for something else, or negotiate with Zillow and/or photographers if they are even willing...

The idea of silence as humor is not a specific expression, and as such is not eligible for copyright protection. The precise "Everybody Loves Raymond" clip with said silence, is copyright-able, however. I do not know if there have been any lawsuits over 4'33". There have been copyright lawsuits over a single bass line, a photo of a red double-decker bus, a dictionary of made up Harry Potter words, King Kong, and sneaker design. (Side note, there was even a guy who was sued for infringing McDonald's trademark for using his own last name for his restaurant.)

You did not make up the word "copyright", therefore you cannot claim copyright thereupon. Further, you can face a fine of up to $2,500 for fraudulent copyright claims. I know you were joking, but be careful about what you slap a circle c on in real life. It's amazing that more copyfraud doesn't get punished, honestly.

Copyright can cover ideas

No it can't. It covers expressions of ideas. And no, that's not the same thing.

https://www.copyright.gov/help...

Similarly, you can't Copyright a word, or a string of words.

You absolutely can copyright a string of words, if it's long enough. And they don't have to be complete thoughts, either.

Here's a quick summary of what can and can't be copyrighted (page 3.)

Actually, based on existing law ... I'd say that jokes can be copyrighted as long as they've been recorded somehow -- written down, recorded audibly, etc. and especially if they've been published. One might argue that a really short joke ("Three guys walk into a bar. The fourth one ducks.") is too short, but a longer one? Like "The Aristocats"? Seems eligible to me.

Of course, the courts may see it differently, but I guess we'll see ...

You can copyright very long strings of words as complete thoughts, but even then I can quote you all I like as long as I give credit.

You have a strange view of copyright law.

{The entire text of the Harry Potter series} --J. K. Rowling

Of course, that's not what you meant, but it is basically what you said ...

What you seem to be referring to is "fair use". It certainly exists, but you've greatly oversimplified it.

So, I'm reading up on my history. I apparently had some bad information fed to me in high school because I very clearly remember being taught that copyright law was almost non existent until an outcry after the death of Stephen foster. The who of which seems to have been a myth.
https://www.copyright.gov/circ...
http://www.pitt.edu/~amerimus/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

On the other hand what you are saying doesn't make all that much sense either , because without copyright law the 'public domain' simply does not exist, or if it does all works once first sale occur exist within in.

Because Berkeley lied when they said that they had to provide transcripts or remove the material. Section 107 of the copyright act 1976 allows for fair use for teaching materials, and this allows 3rd parties to make available all such materials in more accessible forms, and for Berkeley to use the results of such work.

They weren't interested in doing this. It's about monetization and artificial scarcity, pure and simple. This was just a smokescreen to remove the material.

The blind will be using TTS screen readers such as non-visual desktop access anyway, and deaf people can still read the materials, and use STT software for converting speech to text (and to all those idiots who continue to say that speech-to-text doesn't work because it didn't when you tried it in 1995, try dictating your SMS messages - it's quicker and more accurate than trying to use an on-screen keyboard).

The relevant statute is Title 17, United States Code, Section 121: Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction for blind or other people with disabilities. It begins as follows:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement of copyright for an authorized entity to reproduce or to distribute copies or phonorecords of a previously published, nondramatic literary work if such copies or phonorecords are reproduced or distributed in specialized formats exclusively for use by blind or other persons with disabilities.

If you want to make up pretend versions of the law, fine. I'll go with the one that actually matters.

Read 512(b). I presume copyright.gov is reasonably authoritative?

For you to own the copyright on your own creative works, you are required to do literally nothing.

This is true except in one case: "protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully." (17 USC 103(a)) When George Harrison wrote the song "My Sweet Lord", he unwittingly "used unlawfully" a portion of the song "He's So Fine" written by Ronald Mack and lost a million dollar lawsuit over it. Another way in which a work can be accidentally "used unlawfully" is a claim of fair use pursuant to section 107 that a copyright owner disputes, such as the Harry Potter Lexicon case.

There's a big difference. FM radio, Sirius XM radio, and Pandora don't give the user much control over what is played beyond the genre. Spotify and YouTube, on the other hand, are what 17 USC 114 calls "interactive services". An interactive service plays a particular song on demand, which is a much closer substitute for buying a phonorecord* than a radio-style service is. Avoiding the "interactive service" designation is how Pandora can negotiate such lower royalty rates than services like Spotify and YouTube.

* "Phonorecord" is legalese for a copy of a sound recording. It doesn't mean specifically vinyl.

This sort of thing is specifically exempted.

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access."

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

That has never stopped corporate lawyers before, and it'll be very expensive for him to prove himself right.

This sort of thing is specifically exempted.

"Computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and which require the original media or hardware as a condition of access."

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

Apparently this "threat" has existed for quite a while. How have we ever survived?

From: U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index

Fair use is a judge-created doctrine dating back to the nineteenth century and codified in the 1976 Copyright Act.

And: Fair use

The 1709 Statute of Anne, an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, created copyright law to replace a system of private ordering enforced by the Stationers' Company. The Statute of Anne did not provide for legal unauthorized use of material protected by copyright. In Gyles v Wilcox (1740) the Court of Chancery established the doctrine of "fair abridgement," which permitted unauthorized abridgement of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. Over time, this doctrine evolved into the modern concepts of fair use and fair dealing. Fair use was a common-law doctrine in the U.S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 107.

For example this: http://copyright.gov/circs/cir... . I insist that any decision by court restricting the use of a character alone, irrespective of work, and in all works changes the meaning of copyright as defined in law, and thus the law must be updated for those decisions to make sense.

By citing a specific case one might conclude that AMC’s attorney is confident that the cases are similar, but reading the details casts more than just a little doubt on his claims.

The historical case in question involved the publication of a book by Publications International which covered in detail the first eight episodes of the 1990/91 TV series Twin Peaks. The big question was whether this use of copyright works was protected under fair use but in the end the court decided the publisher had gone too far.

The court found that the defendant’s “detailed recounting of the show’s plotlines went far beyond merely identifying their basic outline for the transformative purposes of comment or criticism” adding:

Because the plot synopses were so detailed, and in fact lifted many sections verbatim from the original scripts, the court found that defendant copied a substantial amount of plaintiff’s original works.

This hardly seems to mirror the situation playing out alongside a potential spoiler of an unaired episode of The Walking Dead. Presumably that spoiler can be achieved by saying a single name too, which by no stretch of the imagination amounts to a substantial part of any show.

I'm ambivalent about spoilers myself, just knowing who it is doesn't equal seeing it play out with the acting, effects, etc. Sometimes I'm glad not to know, sometimes I wish I didn't know a spoiler, sometimes I love knowing.

There are four factors to consider when determining if the copying is "fair use":

1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

Google's use of the Java interfaces is to educate other pieces of code about what the implementation does. Interfaces are essentially documentative in nature, not creative...

2. Nature of the copyrighted work

Interfaces are not very creative. All they really do is document the input and output of an implementation. The implementation is where the creativity of the work is expressed.

3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

I bet the interfaces are less than 3% of the code base. If not, we have an over-architected language on our hands here..

4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

Oracle didn't lose a dime over this until they started paying lawyers to sue Google. If anything, Google's use of the Java interfaces made Java more valuable, because it brought more developers into the Java fold.

This comment shamelessly copies content from http://www.copyright.gov/fair-... ... a work of the United States Government not subject to copyright protection.

It could be the case that Fox obtained permission from Konami, copyright owner of Double Dribble, and then used the clip pursuant to 17 USC 103(a), which states that an unauthorized derivative work is not eligible for copyright, and/or a supposition that the uploader's contribution to the clip do not "represent an original work of authorship" (17 USC 101).