Slashdot Mirror

Get YOUR facts straight. For all of you who haven't bothered to read the text of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, for a judge or jury to find for the plaintiff on one of these typosquatting cases, they must merely find that the defendant's domain on balance violated five or more of the following nine factors listed as violations of the law:

(i) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(ii) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(iii) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(iv) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a
site accessible under the domain name;
(v) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(vi) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(vii) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(viii) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(ix) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection (c)(1) of this section.

Read these through: If you know anything about the law, you will probably come to the conclusion that a large share of these look-alike typo domains violated the ACPA (particularly the ones that feature ads that link directly back to the REAL site of the ACTUL trademark holder...or claim to and then lead the visitor into a circle hell of other ad pages).

You're either lacking in intelligence or integrity, so I'll go slowly. Read the 1st amendment again, it says Congress shall make no law, it never says say anything you want anywhere. The supreme court actually deciding the details of what speech is unacceptable is part of the systems of checks and balances, something that's sorta a necessary part of a democracy, which Sweden apparently isn't.

A handy reference to extremist speech

I think Theo Van Gogh may disagree with that. And a few minutes on Google reveals Chris Crain may have offended a few guys. Same with these guys.

Yeah, everyone over there in the Netherlands are very tolerant and no one is ever offended by anything.

"I don't know of any country in the EU where it's illegal to discuss something from the WWII era, only Germany where denying the holocaust is illegal."

Well obviously that was hyperbole referring to stuff like this.

Then your father needed to hire a better patent attorney.

Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)

"It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a "different state or thing." We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

Diamond v. Diehr (1981)

"In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. These include installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly recalculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time. Obviously, one does not need a "computer" to cure natural or synthetic rubber, but if the computer use incorporated in the process patent significantly lessens the possibility of "overcuring" or "undercuring," the process as a whole does not thereby become unpatentable subject matter."

My citations may be damned, but they are correct. Your father's failure to properly protect his interests does not alter the state of the law, and does not prove me wrong.

I didn't know what statutory damage was so I looked it up, thanks for mentioning the subject.
For what it's worth, I think it's a bad concept. The punishment should not exceed the 'crime'. And if the damage can't be calculated accurately, it's better to err on the side of the defendants , even it it means some real infringers will walk away.

The Ninth Circuit's dismissal of the appeal means that Microsoft will not be able to argue at trial that consumers today recognize "Windows" to be a valid brand of operating system proprietary to Microsoft.

The litigation over the Windows trademark highlights a distinction between valid trademarks that become generic over time -- "escalator" for moving stairs is a frequently-cited example -- and words or phrases that were generic from the moment of their adoption by the purported trademark owner -- for example, "raisin bran" for breakfast cereal made from raisins and bran.

Trademarks are subject to dilution. Hasbro isn't in connection with a game company. That's their business name. Risk is - its not their name, its the name of a product, and as such, enjoys a LOT less protection. The Reg had an interesting article on how trademarks get diluted. In this case, Risk isn't even a trademarkable word - its a generic english term. Same with Windows. Remember how Microsoft backed down and paid Lindows $20 million to go away when the issue looked like it was going to go before a judge?

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg- 2002-04-all.html

The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.

Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone.

Here's another way of looking at it: If you can't think of any other term to describe a product, that term probably is generic. So, ask yourself this question: What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than "windows," to describe its product? If you can't think of one, then windows just might be generic.

As a result, if "Windows" is generic for graphical user interfaces, then Microsoft cannot prevent anyone else from using that mark -- or a similar mark, such as "Lindows."

Hasbro better not roll the dice on this one - the defenders dies are all 6s to their snake-eyes

You appear to be correct in stating that Microsoft has a trademark on "Windows"

However:

From GigaLaw

"Is "Windows" a Generic Term?

SEE ALSO
Making Your (Trade)Mark on the World

Compelling Business Reasons to Take Trademarks Seriously

Basic Facts About Registering a Trademark
Microsoft's intriguing legal fight to prevent a startup from identifying itself and its software as "Lindows" provides some valuable lessons for companies of every size -- including Microsoft itself, which has had more trademark troubles than necessary for a Fortune 100 company.

The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.

Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone."

site here

That said, I dont know how they work in the land down under....

As to reading the article, you must be new here... :-)

Yes, having read the article, I see why Austrialian trademarks would factor in.

Two links more helpful for you than me.

Link 1

Link 2

If I understood my lawyer correctly. You do have legal redress.

Two links more helpful for you than me.

Link 1

Link 2

If I understood my lawyer correctly. You do have legal redress.

I'm trying to purchase a domain from a domain squatter. He's just putting up a GoDaddy ForSale sign, but he doesn't know the first thing about selling a domain. I've offered him $300, which I think is a fair price, but he's holding out for a multithousand dollar offer, which is extremely doubtful, considering the domain name. (not posting the domain name so he isn't warned) Anyway, to keep On Topic, try using Snapnames.com to retrieve the domain when it expires, or try suing them. There is a law (see below link) that bans cybersquatting: http://www.gigalaw.com/library/anticybersquattinga ct-1999-11-29-p1.html

What part of my argument specifically is it that makes you 'see red'?

Give me just ONE example of where COPYRIGHT (NOT trademarks, and NOT patents) prevents innovation. Just one. In fact, I'll settle for a conceptual model. You see, I've heard this argument again and again, and I've never seen anybody actually manage to justify that statement about copyright stifling innovation.

You must be new here. I'll be happy to provide more than one. Music? Remixing has been affected. Internet radio has certainly been stifled by copyright law too. Of course, you can't mention copyright infringement without mentioning P2P. Here, the law puts Bram Cohen's BitTorrent in possible legal jeopardy because of what he said, not how his software works. That's tantamount to thought crime. Why is there no iTunes-like software for my DVD collection? Probably because circumventing CSS, or distributing software that does the same, is a felony in the US. Being an author, you'll find this interesting: Encryption researchers are afraid to publish their findings thanks to copyright law.

But it's not just music, software, movies, and books being affected, it's everything. A frickin' universal garage door opener manufacture got hit with a DMCA lawsuit. If you don't have bags of money sitting around, one lawsuit, regardless of whether or not you are victorious, can put you out of business. I could go on, but I think I've more than adequately met your requirements. Copyright in the USA has gotten way out of hand and is damaging innovation and invention in practically every industry.

In fact, it's COPYRIGHT that protects the open source movement from being downright raped by corporations like Microsoft!

I assume you are referring to the GPL. You do realize that the GPL was designed to be the anti-copyright, right? Allow me to quote the pertinent part:

The GPL, on the other hand, subtracts from copyright rather than adding to it. The license doesn't have to be complicated, because we try to control users as little as possible. Copyright grants publishers power to forbid users to exercise rights to copy, modify, and distribute that we believe all users should have; the GPL thus relaxes almost all the restrictions of the copyright system. The only thing we absolutely require is that anyone distributing GPL'd works or works made from GPL'd works distribute in turn under GPL. That condition is a very minor restriction, from the copyright point of view. Much more restrictive licenses are routinely held enforceable: every license involved in every single copyright lawsuit is more restrictive than the GPL.

In other words, if it weren't for copyright, there would be no need for the GPL. It exists because of copyright.

There are already laws...

Exactly. Instead of DDos'ing spammers and their hosting providers, why not use the bogus accounts to collect the information to turn the spammers over to the authorities. It looks like it could be quite a lucrative deal.

From the CAN-SPAM bill:

"SEC. 11. IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT BY PROVIDING REWARDS FOR INFORMATION ABOUT VIOLATIONS; LABELING. The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce-- (1) a report, within 9 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a system for rewarding those who supply information about violations of this Act, including-- (A) procedures for the Commission to grant a reward of not less than 20 percent of the total civil penalty collected for a violation of this Act to the first person that-- (i) identifies the person in violation of this Act; and (ii) supplies information that leads to the successful collection of a civil penalty by the Commission; and (B) procedures to minimize the burden of submitting a complaint to the Commission concerning violations of this Act, including procedures to allow the electronic submission of complaints to the Commission; and (2) a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters ''ADV'' in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan./

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/samuels-2 001-04-all.html

What's so different about this other than it prevents burning on a CD-ROM? If you want to burn CD's to your heart's content without fear from the man, just follow the law http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm.

Link to previous comments on this issue.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=104952&cid=893 7703

Funny how you get a flamebait mod because you have the temacity to question slashdot's bonifides.

Anway the debate goes on elsewere.

"I disagree. One can define theft as taking an item that one is not legally
entitled to. I think that is a reasonable definition of theft, and
copyright infringement typically meets this defintion. The most common
argument against calling copyright "theft" is that nothing is taken from the
owner. Of course, that is also not true. The owner's IP is taken without
their permission. Another argument is that the owner is not prevented from
using the IP. Again, that is not totally true. Infringement typically
reduces the value of the owner's IP (because unauthorized copies dilute the
marketplace), and thus the owner has lost something. Often, anauthorized
uses are inferior in quality, hurting the owners reputation. The fact that
the owner has an infinite supply of the IP is not relevant to the issue,
IMHO."

"And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.

What does "take" mean?

Does "take" mean that I get it when I "shouldn't" have it?

Or does "take" mean, that the prior owner no longer has it?

Those in favor of stronger copyrights argue for the first.
Those in favor of looser copyrights argue for the second."

"I think that I have already provided a number of reasonable definitions of
theft that suffice. The problem isn't you taking the position that the term
"theft" may be misleading as a synonym for infringement, because they are
NOT synonyms. The problem is you claiming that there is no reasonable
definition of theft that could include infringement. That is just not the
case, and is insulting to those who think otherwise.

-Bodi"

Funny how you get a flamebait mod because you have the temacity to question slashdot's bonifides.

Anway the debate goes on elsewere.

"I disagree. One can define theft as taking an item that one is not legally
entitled to. I think that is a reasonable definition of theft, and
copyright infringement typically meets this defintion. The most common
argument against calling copyright "theft" is that nothing is taken from the
owner. Of course, that is also not true. The owner's IP is taken without
their permission. Another argument is that the owner is not prevented from
using the IP. Again, that is not totally true. Infringement typically
reduces the value of the owner's IP (because unauthorized copies dilute the
marketplace), and thus the owner has lost something. Often, anauthorized
uses are inferior in quality, hurting the owners reputation. The fact that
the owner has an infinite supply of the IP is not relevant to the issue,
IMHO."

"And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.

What does "take" mean?

Does "take" mean that I get it when I "shouldn't" have it?

Or does "take" mean, that the prior owner no longer has it?

Those in favor of stronger copyrights argue for the first.
Those in favor of looser copyrights argue for the second."

"I think that I have already provided a number of reasonable definitions of
theft that suffice. The problem isn't you taking the position that the term
"theft" may be misleading as a synonym for infringement, because they are
NOT synonyms. The problem is you claiming that there is no reasonable
definition of theft that could include infringement. That is just not the
case, and is insulting to those who think otherwise.

-Bodi"

Funny how you get a flamebait mod because you have the temacity to question slashdot's bonifides.

Anway the debate goes on elsewere.

"I disagree. One can define theft as taking an item that one is not legally
entitled to. I think that is a reasonable definition of theft, and
copyright infringement typically meets this defintion. The most common
argument against calling copyright "theft" is that nothing is taken from the
owner. Of course, that is also not true. The owner's IP is taken without
their permission. Another argument is that the owner is not prevented from
using the IP. Again, that is not totally true. Infringement typically
reduces the value of the owner's IP (because unauthorized copies dilute the
marketplace), and thus the owner has lost something. Often, anauthorized
uses are inferior in quality, hurting the owners reputation. The fact that
the owner has an infinite supply of the IP is not relevant to the issue,
IMHO."

"And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.

What does "take" mean?

Does "take" mean that I get it when I "shouldn't" have it?

Or does "take" mean, that the prior owner no longer has it?

Those in favor of stronger copyrights argue for the first.
Those in favor of looser copyrights argue for the second."

"I think that I have already provided a number of reasonable definitions of
theft that suffice. The problem isn't you taking the position that the term
"theft" may be misleading as a synonym for infringement, because they are
NOT synonyms. The problem is you claiming that there is no reasonable
definition of theft that could include infringement. That is just not the
case, and is insulting to those who think otherwise.

-Bodi"

I used to worry about this too (it's hard to claim damages for free software), but it turns out the copyright law allows for the choice between actual damages and statutory damages.

You argument still holds. I just wanted to point out a common misconception.

If I publish a webpage and the state of Texas tells people that they are forbidden from using government-funded equipment to read my document because the state finds the content of my speech to be offensive, the state has abridged my First Amendment rights.

That is both false [...]

Wrong: Internet speech that is merely critical, annoying, offensive or demeaning enjoys constitutional protection.

and not relevent to what we were discussing.

See the supreme court decision about filters in libraries [cnn.com].

Right. How about linking to the Court decision itself rather than a half-assed CNN writeup? Two prior attempts to implement Internet filtering failed, in large part because they imposed child-like standards on all citizens. This law succeeded in large part because

Justice Kennedy concluded that if, as the Government represents, a librarian will unblock filtered material or disable the Internet software filter without significant delay on an adult user's request, there is little to [plaintiff's] case.

And it's irrelevant because they have not made any claim about the blocked content being offensive. Read the bill.

I did. It's short. And it imposed unconstitutional restraints on access to free speech. Similar laws have failed in other states. This is politicking, plain and simple.

Your sequence of steps fails at step two where they impose a restriction on what someone else can distribute. That is censorship.

"Censorship" ... you keep using that word ... I do not think it means what you think it means. And step #2 is merely imposing the same restrictions on companies as they place on government-operated ISPs (in my example). The work in my example originates in and around Hawaii, and is distributed from there. Therefore, by your logic, unless the government shuts down the source of distribution (i.e., the hosting center in Hawaii) they can prevent every other ISP in the U.S. from accessing that one ISP and not actually "censor" anything. By your logic, the government could actually take down that ISP, as long as there's a paper copy of the work somewhere. After all, (by your logic) they're not imposing a restriction on what that person is distributing, merely how they distribute their work.

-jdm

The courts are very familiar with SLAPP suits (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation).

Many states are adopting Anti-SLAPP legislation that should make this easy to get dismissed and as TFA suggests impose sanctions against the plaintiff.

Yes, and that covers computer languages. Just because programming languages can understood and followed by a computer does not change the fact that programming languages are also an effective and sometimes preferred means of human communication.

And just because something is said in a language does not make it copyrightable speach. And, conversely, just because certain contructs of a are uncopyrightable doesn't mean that all are.

Yes, my preferred definitions for copyright would render things like recipies free for the taking. This is wholly acceptable to me and the general public--after all, how many times have you heard of recipies being traded like chain letters?

As for "legal 0-day warez", there are plenty of copyrightable works of art that can be included in a video game to render it protected, and a new non-game application should either be uniquely patentable in part or, at the least, qualify for a design patent which protects its unique form.

Regards to the current status of law:

My point being that that the lower court that is upholding software patents is in direct violation of standing Supreme Court law.

SCOTUS has had twenty-six years since their holding in Parker v. Flook wherein they withheld the patent examiner and patent board that a mere mathematical process wasn't patentable. Since then, as you noted a new court has been created, and we've also had a boom in purely-software industries.

When the State Street Bank case was decided by the Court of Appeals and SCOTUS declined to hear the case, they in effect stood by the lower Court's ruling. You would think that, if they really were of a mind to impose their ancilliary statement from two decades previous, they would have granted ceterari in the seven years (!) since State Street.

Patents for processes and designs without physical basis are entirely legal, as it is right that they should be considering the far-greater array of our economy that has no direct physical basis.

However I'd like to hear you explain why you think the Supreme Court won't toss out the first software patent appeal to cross their docket.

Because they're a conservative court that doesn't want to rock the boat if they can avoid it. And they've been that way for more than two centuries.

Here Ya Go

Here Ya go 2

Here Ya go 3

So where is the basis for your statement?

There's the one where France said you can't internationally auction NAZI memorobilia. And there's more about them going after other neo-Nazi websites. They went after their own ISPs in the 1990s. And then there's Toubon Law which dictates what materials MUST be written in French and what is allowed to be written in other languages.

Every country has their problems, but France's problem seems to be that they don't really understand that they're living in an international world (regardless of how much they might trumpet that belief to other countries). It's time for them to stop attempting to enforce silly standards on other countries, and start allowing their own people to communicate without interference with the outside world, in whatever manner (or language) they see fit.

PS. I know nothing about France.

Note: IANAL.

I don't recall how I came across Ted Nelson's book, Computer Lib/Dream Machines mentioned earlier, but it was some time in the early 90's. I believe he has been credited with inventing the phrase "Hypertext". Just the title "Computer Lib" seems to connote a feeling of some kind of 60's movement like Women's Lib, Woodstock, or the Civil Rights Movement in the US, with Ted Nelson as the Timothy Leary of computers. In my opinion, he is possibly a visionary who's contributions may not be given the proper recognition in his lifetime, like those whose names are cluttered throughout history. I'm surprised that he hasn't received more recognition, especially from computer enthusiasts like slashdotters (you!). I think his name should be as recognisable as Linus Trovalds, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates. And his work deserves a slashdotting if only to get the word out there into the collective consciousness for a brief moment.

Some earlier comments have already brought up information about how his proposed concepts involve a royalty payment system. Given the controversy of displaying contents from other sites in frames, the proposed micropayment system, and digital rights management, it seems his ideas were decades before their time. As much as the term "DRM" causes people to cringe, the missing integration of a royalty payment system with the internet is what has prevented it from being a replacement for print publishing, as well as other forms of media. The web seemed to hold a promise of becoming a repository for literature and information when it first became popular, like a library, but more easily accessible worldwide. However it has yet to fulfill that promise with the available content.

I can recall from what I've read about him that Nelson veered from hierarchical structures of data, choosing instead to have information interconnected in a more free-form fashion, much like the hyperlink interconnections of the web. However, the evolution of the web involving inherently hierarchical data such as SGML and now XML seems to contradict his elusive vision of what the internet should be. He came up with a basic data structure which he called the "enfilade" which would accomplish it, but kept the specifics of the enfilade private. I'm sure it has been implemented in his derivative work, ZigZag, and is now more accessible.

An allegedly less than flattering article published in Wired magazine, also mentioned earlier, gives an inkling of Nelson's possible contributions (I say allegedly because when I read it I actually thought it cast Nelson in a positive light). Xanadu is just the beginning. It is what is needed to organise the cumulative archive of brainstorming work he has done over his lifetime, to make it accessible and usable. Only when technology catches up with his amassed information and allows it to become applicable will his true body of work be recognised. Leonardo da Vinci accumulated 13,000 p

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL:) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell [cornell.edu]. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case [gigalaw.com] is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

il

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL:) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell [cornell.edu]. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case [gigalaw.com] is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

caa

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL:) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell [cornell.edu]. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case [gigalaw.com] is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

gt

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL:) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell [cornell.edu]. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case [gigalaw.com] is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

lka

Neither does Microsoft own the word "Windows". Yet if Novell or Sun started a new unix-based OS called "Novell Windows" or "Sun Windows", I have the vague feeling that they would be fined into bankruptcy by the courts.

As I pointed out in another post, Microsoft has paid people (Lindows being the latest notable one) rather than risk a judgment that Windows when used with computers is a generic, non-trademarkable term.

So you may in fact see a Novell Windows or Sun Windows in the future.

Since people are too lazy to do the research, here are some quotes:

http://www.techspot.com/story10974.html

Lindows.com wins over Microsoft Trademark Case

by Julio on Wed 11 Feb 2004, 01:24 AM

The United States District Court in Seattle has ruled in favor of Lindows.com Inc. ( lindows.com ) concerning key legal issues in the company's dispute with Microsoft over the "windows" trademark. The Court flatly rejected Microsoft's arguments today that the jury should consider the meaning of the term "windows" in its current day usage, ruling rather that the jury should focus on the timeframe prior to the release of Microsoft's Windows products, which is 1983-1985. The Court also ruled that once a word is declared generic it would continue to be generic, informing Microsoft that no amount of marketing around a generic word changes the generic state of the word.

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2002-all/isenberg- 2002-04-all.html

Windows v. Lindows: High-Tech Trademark Troubles

By Doug Isenberg

Summary: When Microsoft sued Lindows.com for violating its rights to the trademark "Windows," a judge cast doubt on the validity of the "Windows" mark. Ultimately, the move could cost the company rights to one of its most valuable pieces of intellectual property. In this column, Doug Isenberg discusses the Lindows.com case and finds lessons in it for all trademark owners.

Is "Windows" a Generic Term?

The current dispute, which Microsoft brought against Lindows.com, already has backfired against the software giant. In March, a federal district judge in Seattle denied Microsoft's request for a preliminary injunction preventing Lindows.com from using its trademark, which Microsoft said violated its own rights to the Windows trademark. In doing so, the judge said the case raised "serious questions" about the validity of the Windows trademark.

Here's why: An elementary principle of trademark law says that generic terms cannot be protected. So, for example, no company could obtain trademark rights to the word "computer" to describe what we all know as a computer. As the judge in the ongoing Lindows case explained: "when a trademark's primary significance is to describe the type of product rather than the producer or source, the mark is a generic term." Generic terms can be used by anyone.

Here's another way of looking at it: If you can't think of any other term to describe a product, that term probably is generic. So, ask yourself this question: What term could the maker of a windows-based user interface (such as Lindows.com) use, other than "windows," to describe its product? If you can't think of one, then windows just might be generic.

As a result, if "Windows" is generic for graphical user interfaces, then Microsoft cannot prevent anyone else from using that mark -- or a similar mark, such as "Lindows."

The judge in the Lindows case did not rule that Windows is a generic term. But he sure found lots of evidence indicating that it might be. Among other things, he noted that the press used the word "windows" to describe a graphical user interface for personal computers even before Microsoft launched the first version of its current operating system -- and that it continues to use the term generi

A few years ago, the RIAA wanted four Internet backbone providers to block access to a music server in China. The court case was never resolved because the music site went offline. The fact that a few companies can control inbound and outbound Internet traffic might well be a concern in itself... Consider the implications of such a chokepoint on Internet traffic. One article considered whether the providers were "common carriers" like a postal service. (This means that they are not liable for illegal content because they are not really supposed to filter content.)

Anonymous proxy services could bypass backbone filtering. The services would have to have legitimate uses (i.e. privacy protection) to avoid being targeted.

For resisting censorship, peer-to-peer systems may have hope. The manufacturers cannot really control the use of the systems even if their license prohibits illegal use. The Freenet system is resistant to censorship but is difficult to use.

The EFF has said that the legality of ripping audio CDs is unclear. Likely, it would be considered "fair use". In 1971, Congress commented on not restraining noncommercial home recording. The Sony Betamax case found that "time-shifting" copyrighted broadcasts for home viewing was fair use. Making personal copies of music with certain devices is allowed under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. For a digital copy to be legitimate under the AHRA, the recording device must prevent multiple-generation copies via copy protection. Also, manufacturers of digital recording devices and/or of blank recording media must pay royalties to the recording industry. Computer equipment is excluded from the AHRA. In the court case RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc. it was ruled that a portable MP3 audio player was outside the scope of the AHRA. This was because the player only recorded music from a computer system. In the case, it is said that use of the player is compatible with the main purpose of the AHRA; the main purpose of the AHRA is "facilitation of personal use."

In any case, non-commercial ripping of legitimately-obtained audio CDs is not likely to hurt anyone.

That's about the same thing as downloading copyrighted high-res photos from some news agency site and reducing resolution and publishing them as part of a news article.

The courts don't think so; if the Aribasoft case is any indication, this p0rn peddling asshat already has his answer.

Image resolution has nothing to do with copyrights.

Wrong. In this particular case it actually has quite a lot to do with whether copyright is enforceable.

Google caches a small thumbnail image. When you look at a page of GIS results you are not loading the image off the website, you are looking at google's cache of that image. This is 100% legal. It's also just plain good sense, otherwise all the thumbnailed webservers would have to serve up a 300k image every time someone searched for something that linked to it.

Yes, it's just like the 800 pound gorilla to take anything it wants, like the common name "windows" that was used to describe GUIs when microsoft was only selling DOS.

Knowing their track record, expect them to deploy more mediocre products with names like "air" "rock" "sky" and bolt them onto their operating system so everyone will have to have a copy.

Your citing of the abortion doctor case is relevant, but doesn't prove your point. In the abortion doctor address case, doctors were ACTUALLY MURDERED. The people publishing the information were being held liable for the deaths of doctors killed and injured. A jury awarded Planned Parenthood $107 million in the case. It still is being battled out in the courts. Here's a great legal discussion of the case.

Note the difference here. That's a civil case where a victim of violence is suing a 'publisher'. This Indymedia situation would appear to be a criminal case in that the FBI doesn't confiscate stuff unless they are looking to put people in jail for something. Hopefully nothing has happened to anyone listed on the Indymedia site.

No one has said a website can't publish the names and addresses of abortion doctors. A jury has said that someone who did is responsible for the deaths and injuries committed against people on said list. It also didn't help the Nuremburg Files website defendents that they were marking off pictures of doctors as they were killed or greying them out if they were only injured. It functioned as a sort of scorecard for psychopaths.

In terms of free speech, prior restraint is a serious defense that has been upheld in countless cases. The Supreme Court describes prior restraint as "the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." In the IndyMedia and the Nuremburg Files case, the government is going to wait and see what the result is of speech rather than intercede with assumptions on what could happen. Probably what has happened with the IndyMedia situation is that the govt. is harrassing them by claiming that something posted was stolen from a comprimised server and they are confiscating the hard drives to investigate the theft of the data.

It was a group called American Coalition of Life Advocates (ACLA). A good description is at Gigalaw.

I don't know about movies, but regarding pictures, you can read the story of Playboy v. Sanfilippo.

There is a great deal of "wiggle room" with respect to what the court "considers just," and in 1999, Congress increased the amounts. In cases in which the plaintiff cannot prove that the infringement was "willful," the Copyright Act allows a sum of "not less than $750 or more than $30,000" per infringement. However, if the court finds that the defendant's behavior was "willful," the court has discretion "to increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000" per infringement.

"Making an MP3 of a small portion of a song to use as an example of that song is also fair use (in the more traditional sense). In fact, making a cassette tape of a CD and giving it to someone you know (without money exchaning hands) is also fair use."

Do you have a citation for this? Are these covered in copyright law, or are they more in the realm of not needing backup because everybody knows they're true?

Googling on "fair use music" gives me the following:

http://www.musiclibraryassoc.org/Copyright/guidemu s.htm

http://www.serve.com/marbeth/music_fair_use.html

http://www.pdinfo.com/fairuse.htm states: "We have attempted to do find specific details and examples of Fair Use of music. The rumors that it is OK to use so many notes or so many bars are just not true. There is little doubt that, other than private in-home listening and playing, Fair Use of music is extremely limited."

http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html states that one can make a "mix tape" for one's own personal enjoyment (their words). There's nothing on the EFF page which gives one blanket authorization to make a copy of a CD and give it to a friend, whether cash is exchanged or not. Nor in this article, which was written by a lawyer.

A common point found in many articles I've read is the impact on the market. If the copying is done to avoid buying another copy, then it's not fair use. While making a copy of a CD for a friend -- cassette, MD, DAT, CD or otherwise -- might be solely so he can "sample" it or "try before he buys" or "evaluate it for consideration of purchasing it," in most cases it's not -- you are making a copy for a friend because he'd rather get a copy from you for free than to buy his own. Not a huge crime -- but not fair use.

CAN-SPAM applies, and of course US law has extraterritorial effect.

As for our end of things, laws extend as far as the counstitution (due process) allows. On the foreign end, they may be *practical* problems such as getting physical custody (extradition), seizing assets, collecting evidence, but the US and Canada are on very good terms and have one of the most significant economic relationships in the world -- we can work it out. Also, if the defendants have violated the act and we can't reach them, they may still have reason to regret it -- and US assets might be forfeited and they might not want to visit. They can also be subject to suit in absentia -- if they refuse to show up on proper notice and jurdiction, they may lose their defenses.

Jurisdiction derives from the domestic effects, you can't just hide on the other side of the border. The classic example is that if you shoot someone across the border, you are subject to the jurisdiction; yes this applies to fraud and other intangible offenses like the Nigerian scams. Again, the problems are practical. About CAN-SPAM. The practical problems in enforcing it are HUGE, but clearly the theoretical jurisdiction exists. Also -- it seems a bit implausible to suppose that Yahoo's lawyers missed so many first-year law classes that they didn't catch any of this.

As for who may sue -- the law in enforceable by the FTC, civil action by the states, and not individuals but ISP's (here, Yahoo):

(f) ACTION BY PROVIDER OF INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.--

(1) ACTION AUTHORIZED.--A provider of Internet access service adversely affected by a violation of section 5 may bring a civil action in any district court of the United States with jurisdiction over the defendant, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, to--

(A) enjoin further violation by the defendant; or

(B) recover damages in an amount equal to the greater of--

(i) actual monetary loss incurred by the provider of Internet access service as a result of such violation; or

(ii) the amount determined under paragraph (2).

(2) STATUTORY DAMAGES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the amount determined under this paragraph is the amount calculated by multiplying the number of willful, knowing, or negligent violations by an amount, in the discretion of the court, of up to $10 (with each separately addressed unlawful message carried over the facilities of the provider of Internet access service or sent to an electronic mail address obtained from the provider of Internet access service in violation of section 5(b) treated as a separate violation). In determining the per-violation penalty under this subparagraph, the court shall take into account the degree of culpability, any history of prior such conduct, ability to pay, the extent of economic gain resulting from the violation, and such other matters as justice may require.

(B) LIMITATION.--For any violation of section 5 (other than section 5(a)(1)), the amount determined under subparagraph (A) may not exceed $500,000, except that if the court finds that the defendant committed the violation willfully and knowingly, the court may increase the limitation established by this paragraph from $500,000 to an amount not to exceed $1,500,000.

(3) ATTORNEY FEES.--In any action brought pursuant to paragraph (1), the court may, in its discretion, require an undertaking for the payment of the costs of such action, and assess reasonable costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, against any party.

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL :) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

But in the U.S. you can have a digital copy of something as long as you legally own the original. This has to do with the Home Taping Act. So if I buy the new Red House Painters Cd and it is copy protected, I can legally download it from someone else. I already own the album... right? --Nick P.S. You can always do an analog rip. If you are compressing the music, the little bit of additonal signal degredation isn't noticeable, and a lot of software supports this.

From GigaLaw:
The Great Database Debate
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/isenberg- 2001-04b-all.html

The DB articles in general (only 3):
http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/databases.htm l

The attempt to profit from a domain name is a statutory element of bad faith under the Anti-Cybersquatting laws. Whether or not a person did try to profit, under the law, is something for a judge/jury to determine. It doesn't look good if you get an offer (which companies make all the time to avoid the legal costs) then make a huge, unfounded counteroffer.

Besides, if you are truly violating a trademark, it isn't like you are entitled to get your costs back. If your costs are large, a company will probably go to the WIPO for an arbitration and just take the name. That process is much cheaper than $10,000, anyway.

Try Googling "Domain Name Lawsuit" and then tell me there's only one way to get a domain name.

You may also want to read the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

Check this link out I just found here. Read the section about the guy selling t-shirts that made a profit of 1,200 and lost 20,000.

In the case of t-shirts, however, copyright infringement is not so clear. Chord progressions can be identical and no copyright infringement may be found. It's all up to the courts, I suppose.

The sum of $150,000 per song is based on the statutory damages allowed for willful infringement in copyright law.

I'd like to calm the rhetoric. Sure, common sense would indicate the RIAA's copyrights have been violated. But copyright has been heavily legislated over the past century to the point that common sense or common law is nearly absent. It has such things as compulsory licences and device royalties. Morality should be confined to governing personal actions and advocating revisions to intellectual property law. It is disingenuous for the RIAA to invoke morality when if anything they have had excessive influence in crafting legislation.

IANAL but lets look at the law. Once you know the tokens, legalese is not usually harder to parse than APL :) Apologies for a US-centric viewpoint but I believe a statutory situation exists in all other common-law countries with different details. There's an excellent copy of the United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights at Cornell. Chapter 10 covers DIGITAL AUDIO RECORDING DEVICES AND MEDIA . Particularly interesting is:

Sec. 1008. - Prohibition on certain infringement actions... No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings

Simply breathtaking! The words "this title" mean Title 17, which contains all of US copyright law. The first "based on" means these things are not actionable as contributory negligence ("burglars tools"). The second "based on" means non-commercial use of these things does not violate copyright. Wow!

The definitions in Sec.1001 would seem to include computers. They sure are designed, advertised and used that way amongst others. But all is not [Guns'N'] roses. The manufacturers of these recording devices would seem to owe a device tax that gets paid through the Librarian-of-Congress (of all people!) to the RIAA as specified. There are also requirements related to the Serial Copy Management System. I trust that RIAA have settled this with their long-standing antagonists, appliance manufacturers, now including Dell, HP, et al. But even if not, how does it affect me?

The term "noncommercial use" would almost certainly cover receiving music files to make recordings on a hard-disk. Offering to transmit music files might not be covered and fall under the exceptionally byzantine Sec.114 as an "interactive service". But a lawyer specialising in Copyright law should be able to give a better interpretation including case precedents. The Diamond Rio MP3 player case is probably relevant. Is there a lawyer in the house?

From the decision:

... although defendant seeks to portray its service as the "functional equivalent" of storing its subscribers' CDs, in actuality defendant is replaying for the subscribers converted versions of the recordings it copied, without authorization, from plaintiffs' copyrighted CDs. On its face, this makes out a presumptive case of infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976...