Slashdot Mirror

What about the artists that write their own music?

George Harrison tried writing his own music after the Lennon-McCartney band broke up. Harrison got sued and lost to the tune of $1.6 million in damages, and the finding of infringement was upheld on appeal.

Even though the scheme used may be open source, it still doesn't necessarily mean I can disable it on a device that only allows me to listen to "premium content" so I can play the cool, independent stuff.

What makes you think the "cool, independent stuff" is necessarily legal for the artists to distribute? Every musical sound recording has an underlying musical work (whose copies are called "sheet music"), and the recording is a derivative of the musical work. But unfortunately, under the current standards for originality in musical works, it's cost-prohibitive for a songwriter operating in the United States to guarantee that a given work is original. Much of the difficulty comes from the subconscious copying doctrine established in Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and upheld on appeal by the Second Circuit. The ramifications are depressing.

As far as I know, that was actually hashed out in Sega v. Accolade, where Sega was trying to prevent unlicensed cartridges by requiring software to contain the trademark "SEGA" and to write it at a specific hardware register (the infamous TMSS or "trademark security system"). The court found that it was legal for Accolade to include the TMSS for the purposes of making their own code work on the system, as the TMSS was initally intended to help fight counterfeiters (by counterfeiting such a cartridge, it would display the "SEGA" mark that shows up before all games on a Genesis 2 or 3).

For more indepth information, read Sega v. Accolade.

Just so you know, that idea's as old as the 80s, and won't work.

You're allowed to violate copyrights and trademarks if it's essential in order to interoperate with platforms.

975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ2d 1015
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/24PQ2D1015.ht m

Also case law in the Game Boy field (think that was Codemasters v. Nintendo), allowing them to violate the trademark on the Nintendo logo by putting it in the ROM.

Sony tried similar in the PlayStation's expansion port's header, which was shamelessly exploited by Datel, Future Console Design and others for the original Xploder cartridges and other similar things (GameShark); Sony gave up, and did not sue.

I can think of a few good places for where to start reforming the system. ... No patents on mathematics.

Yes. It wasn't a criminal offense back then. Copyright was strictly a civil issue, like patent infringement is today. Criminal copyright penalties were introduced for film and sound recordings in 1982, and for everything else in 1992. Thirty years ago, it wasn't even clear that computer programs should be copyrightable at all. There was considerable discussion over this, and prominent authors argued against it.

Byte Magazine, in the early days, ran full page ads for a company called "Pirate's Harbor". "Locksmith", a tool for breaking copy protection, was a successsful commercial product.

Professor Hollaar just published a paper on this topic (probably the basis for this idea). I know for a fact that this has been in the process of being considered by the IEEE for a few years now, so it's not some half-thought-out idea.

digital-law-online.info/papers/lah/mini-patent.pdf

Also, some research I did for him last summer on this topic:

www.wise-intern.org/journal04/WISE2004-JeremyTunne llFinalPaper.pdf

While I don't always agree with Professor Hollaar on every issue, I think this idea deserves some serious consideration. There are many countries out there (australia, japan, etc) who have successfully implemented it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Professor Hollaar has an intimate understanding of these issues. He is a blue-chip expert in this arena, and your suggestions to the contrary are wholly unfounded.

Lee Hollaar is one of our nation's most brilliant non-legal scholars regarding intellectual property issues. Lee has been active in intellectual proprerty matters for decades, and is the author of the BNA publication "Legal Protection of Digital Information," which you can read for free online (complete with hyperlinks to case law!) at the AUTHOR's insistance. Although he is no doubt an IP maximalist, his is frequenty a reasoned and well-informed view.

He is the author of or worked closely with the authors of highly influential amicus briefs that led the United States Supreme Courts to decisions in landmark intellectual property law cases. He worked on the hill as a staffer, and also as an advisor to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. And he has served as technical expert and special master in many important IP and technology law cases, including United States v. Microsoft.

As it turns out, I do not agree with Lee on the necessity or benefits of his "petit patent" proposal, and might agree with a more critically worded and substantive revision of the poster's remarks. Unlikely many on this forum, I find Lee to be open to new ideas and revisions of his old ones when confronted with solid argument. This flexibility toward truth-seeking rather than lockstep ideology is one of the principal reasons he is such a formidable opponent at a debate on IP matters, and why his opinions, even when they are wrong, are highly influential.

But I would Never, NEVER suggest that the proposal was founded in ignorance. Professor Hollaar has enormous gravitas in the IP community, and his influence is well-deserved. Right or wrong (I often disagree and spar with him), your suggestions about his understanding are wholly unfounded.

This is totally false and you won't find any commercial library vendors saying that you don't owe them money because you only dynamically linked to thier library, or because you didn't distribute it.

Wrong. Microsoft says just that. Or actually they don't really say anything at all, they just offer you a distribution license and leave it at that.

The fact of the matter is that if you build an applicaiton that uses (say) the Oracle ODBC driver, you might owe Oracle some money to distribute it, but you don't have Oracle asserting intellectual property rights over the rest of your program. Which is exactly what MySQL is doing.

as far as I know there's never been a court case that really spelled out the limits

There is a principle called Abstraction Filtration Comparison Test, but you won't read about it on the FSF's website :)

According to this case:

...Williams obtained three copyright registrations relating to its DEFENDER game: one covering the computer program, Registration No. TX 654-755, effective date December 11, 1980; the second covering the audiovisual effects displayed during the game's "attract mode",2 Registration No. PA 97-373, effective date March 3, 1981; and the third covering the audiovisual effects displayed during the game's "play mode",3 Registration No. PA 94-718, effective date March 11, 1981. Readily visible copyright notices for the DEFENDER game were placed on the game cabinet, appeared on the CRT screen during the attract mode and at the beginning of the play mode, and were placed on labels which were attached to the outer case of each memory device (ROM). In addition, the Williams program provided that the words "Copyright 1980 - Williams Electronics" in code were to be stored in the memory devices, but were not to be displayed on the CRT at any time....

For you kids out there, Defender was the hardest game in the pizza shop and viciously consumed many unsupecting quarters. See the screen shots for the copyright text.

Looking is dangerous.

If you later write a piece of software that in any way resembles software for which M$ owns the copyright (where 'resemblance' will be something a lawyer can get to define in a court of law), and if you have looked, you could easily lose the copyright to your own work and be found guilty of copying from M$.

From http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27. html:

If you have had access to the source of a computer program, you need to be particularly concerned that you aren't unconsciously copying the original program when you write a similar program.

If what you write is successful enough to attract M$ lawywers, being able to say "I never even looked" could prove to be very important!

I remember the days when Altavista came along it was a godsend to the internet, now the might of Google has all but wiped out the competition. Sure Yahoo has a better media search, but have you ever tried typing in a question to the ask search engine yuk. (BTW they advertise the engine as being able to answer questions)

Google's ok, but it can be a nightmare trying to find something that you don't know quite what it's called. Try finding 'abstraction filtration comparison' by searching for software reverse engineering clean room copyright law, or whatever.

Google needs some kind of proximity, occurrence count, font size/layout ranking system.

Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair . . . I think google's implementation of this project very clearly falls under scholarship and/or research purposes.

All four factors of "fair use" must be taken into consideration by the courts. See Rich. And because any alleged infringement can usually be distinguished from pre-existing case law, there is no such thing as an automatic fair use because one of the factors weighs heavily in favor of the alleged infringer. Copying 300 words can be an infringement while copying an entire work may not be an infringement. See Hollaar .

Until the courts decide whether a particular activity is a fair use, the alleged infringer is legally a kind of Schrodinger's Cat. Until the courts decide, Google is in a sense both a guilty infringer and an innocent fair user. Only legally observing Google's state by trial can definitively answer the question of whether Google's acts infringe on the rights of the plaintiff authors.

Copyright was originally ment to allow the govenment censors to control what could be printed.

Not quite, at least in the US. All that had to be done to copyright is to file for a copyright and submit what is being copyrighted. As for why copyrights were established, it was to encourage the creation of creative works. Following are sections of correspondents between Thomas Jefferon and James Madison:

Copyright Law and Practice

From Thomas Jefferson to James Madison on 31 July 1788

The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression.

On October 17 1788 Jame Madison replied:

With regard to monopolies they are justly classified among the greatest nuisances in Government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the Public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our Governments, than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many and not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

Eventually Madison was able to convince Jefferson that copyrights could encourage creative works. Once he was Jefferson calculated copyrights should last 14 years with another 14 being available as an extension.

I'm convinced that the people who gripe so much about copyright law are those who would never create something themselves worth stealing.

I'm a programmer, I've created many copyrighted works worth stealing and I want copyright circumscribed. In general the people pushing for more copyright are the parasites, the lawyers and marketing organisations who think they are entitled to profit off of the creators' work.

The thing you are missing is that all creators build on the work of others (Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.") and even for brilliant creators there is a tradeoff between the benefit of the works they create and the cost of the works they consume. Even creative people consume vastly more than they create.

they offer the exact same protection and profit potential to individuals.

Like it or not, protection of the individual creator is irrelevant. The purpose of copyright law is not to guarantee a profit to the creator, it's "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.". Background here.

If a ten year copyright term promotes progress to the benefit of the public at large and to the detriment of a small number of authors, so be it.

I do wish some science and actual, honest-to-goodness factual, objective evidence for various copyright terms would enter the debate though, rather than the handwaving that all participants, including you, are currently engaging in.

---

Scientific, evidence based IP law. Now there's a thought.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act
(emphasis mine).

"Who the fuck are you to break a lock the authoring company put on their software."

What an odd thing to say. Who broke what lock on what software?

"How about this, if you believe you should be allowed to break someone's code, "

Since nobody broke anybodies code this statement is off topic in this discussion.

"Do you believe that a burgler should be allowed to break into your house to copy your hard drive?"

Err of course not. Who broke into whose house and stole what hard drive?

"A signature is not a requirement of agreements. Clicking "I accept" or "yes" or some other compliance button is just as acceptable."

first of all what did tridge click on to say "I accept" or "yes"

Secondly you are talking out of your ass. Nobody has ever tested this in court and nobody has ever sued anybody for violating a click through agreement.

"Also, just in case you plan to say it, immediately trying to reverse the code so you never see the EULA is also not acceptable."

Who says? You? Are you some sort of a legal scholar? I kind of doubt it because you don't seem to even be able comprehend the issues in this case let alone case law.

"Since EULA's have been and are presently accepted in court"

Citation please.

"reverse engineering of a product that specifically states in its EULA that you may not do so is not allowed and as such could result in a person being sued."

A EULA can not ask you give up a constitutional right. Secondly Tridge never singed a EULA.

"Where is this guaranteed right of yours that states someone is allowed to reverse engineer closed source without permission from the owners?"

this law.

You really should stop speaking now, it's clear you are absolutely ignorant on this subject. You have no idea what was done by whom and to what end.

Because the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of a copy, the law should provide that persons in rightful possession of copies of programs be able to use them freely without fear of exposure to copyright liability.

This would include the right to load it into a computer and to prepare archival copies of it to guard against destruction or damage by mechanical or electrical failure. But this permission would not extend to other copies of the program.

Because the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of a copy, the law should provide that persons in rightful possession of copies of programs be able to use them freely without fear of exposure to copyright liability.

This would include the right to load it into a computer and to prepare archival copies of it to guard against destruction or damage by mechanical or electrical failure. But this permission would not extend to other copies of the program.

Yes you can.

except the GPL is based on copyright.
The 'Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison' process used by the courts to decide if software violates copyright, would return nill-points for using a DLL violating the copyright of that DLL.
unless possibly it was a simple wrapper that you were selling as your own.

Lets say I create a few seperate systems, one scans a stream of data for a match say a header on a tape.
I'll call this grep --file

another system finds blocks of data 'signatures' that I want to match.
I'll call this grep -o

A third lists all the files on my filing system.
I'll call this file.

So, symantic has patented a system where grep --file , grep -o and file cannot be used together if your looking for virus signatures.

(maybe with a little winedump and gzip thrown in for good measure).

There's something called 'Abstraction,
Filtration, Comparison',, applied in this case you would end up with nothing.

that's a 'anomaly' or applying a technical process in order to reflect the underling GPL library and not the generality of dynamic linking.

I still don't believe that it counts because the GPL library can be anything..

Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison would probably have to go on the side of Satan with the exception of extrema prejudice.

A bit more complicated than that.

Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice. Consider all Slashdot users to be talking out their goat-hole.

Technically, I think it might be possible to get around that by slapping an official Apple logo from Apple on the piece of hardware.

Apple Legal: "No, that'd be trademark infringement."

However, you could rely on the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Sega v. Accolade and the Magnuson-Moss act, both of which reduce the anticompetitive effect of tying a product to other products identified by brand name.

You might want to take a peak at MAI v. Peak (9th cir., 1993) where the court held that loading software into RAM puts a "copy" in RAM. Now, I don't know how DVD players work, but if any part of the process stores the underlying code, even for a moment in time, there *may* be an argument that circumventing ACM is a DMCA violation, because without doing so, the "copy" (in RAM) couldn't be made. Welcome to the weird, wacky world of law, technology and metaphysics.

Reverse engineering is allowed under copyright law for interoperability. How do you think Samba exists without being shutdown under copyright law? read section 1 closely on this page. Real is completely within their rights.

Notice and takedown procedures are infrastructure provided by the government for the express purpose of rapidly blocking public access to information (look here) without making any provision for rapidly restoring access to information erroneously or mischeivously objected to.

It is highly disturbing to me that the government should be building legislation that provides exceptional protection for copyright holders without providing equal protection for legitimate users of public domain information. One should not be surprised that people with deep pockets get better protection under the law than the rest of us, but we should definitely be making a fuss about it!

• And, I'm sorry, but I think that the "loading software into RAM" bit is loopier than the rest.

• We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However, it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling since they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether the software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only memory ("ROM"). [b]However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act.[/b] We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as well as the permanent injunction as it relates to this issue. {FN33: 991 F.2d at 518-519, 26 USPQ2d at 1463-1464 (citations omitted)}

No, you're absolutely wrong. The person who made the copy FOR you had to agree to the GPL in order to copy the software. But there is absolutely nothing that you must agree to in order to use that copy that was distributed to you. At your option, you can reject the terms of the GPL, and you have the same copying rights that default copyright law gives you - the right to make one backup copy for personal use only.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong here... If a friend of mine burns a copy of Windows XP, he has violated copyright to do so, and MS could pursue him for copyright infringement.

But, under your argument, I might say that I am allowed to use this copy of Windows XP, and make a backup copy.

This is obviously not allowed, here's why:

All of computer software copyright hinges on the concept that copying the software from your permanent storage to your computer memory in order to run it counts as copying the work. Unless you agree to the terms of the GPL, you are not allowed to make this copy, necessary to run the software.

(link) (link) (link) (link)

Lets see [sic] you have a movie that you didn't buy.

Someone bought it and gave it to me as a present?

Also, one does not usually go to jail for copyright infringement. See: this link:

Copyright infringement is not punishable by laws against theft. Simple fact.

Wikipedia says this

Theft (colloquially called stealing) is in general unlawfully taking someone else's property. In law, it is usually the broadest term for a crime against property. It is a general term that encompasses offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, and sometimes criminal conversion.

Copyright infringement is usually a civil offence, and only criminal when "the alleged infringer has few assets relative to the damages that have been caused, making civil suit an ineffective remedy for the infringement"

All that said, IANAL...

I believe that the relevant US case here is Whelan v. Jaslow, in which the court finds that copyright protection of computer programs may extend beyond the programs' literal code to their structure, sequence, and organization.

They simply assert that you must agree to the license in order to use the software.

And the GPL asserts that you must agree to the license in order to distribute or modify the software.

Installing involves copying and modification. So does running.

Actually, they don't. Those terms, as applied to copyright law (which is what we are talking about, since we're talking GPL) have consistantly been found to not include the act of installation or running.

Look at MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc.

This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that: "the loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit ("CPU") causes a copy to be made. In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright infringement." We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and by the law.