Slashdot Mirror

I'm afraid I disagree. Legal recedent points firmly in the direction that the law doesn't care whether you're doing something for profit or if you're doing it gratis when it comes to determining liability, especially when it comes to professional services.

A doctor can be held liable if he, out of the goodness of his heart without expectation of compensation, assists at an accident scene, and through his actions someone is injured or dies. A lawyer can be held liable if he, as a friendly gesture without being paid, gives someone bad legal advice.

I hate to flatly contradict you here, but: The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 very clearly distinguishes between for-profit and non-profit activities. Good Samaritan laws also distinguish between free and for-profit activities (although these laws are more specific to medicine). The law most certainly does care whether you're doing something for profit or doing it gratis, and provides additional protection in the latter case.

....But this has nothing to do with the question at hand, which was about products: Microsoft has made literally piles and piles of money from the premise that software is a product like cars and toys and razor blades, not a service like the medical or legal professions. If this is the case, then the relevant law is that of product liability, and it should require Microsoft to do the same thing that Ford, Sony, Mattel, Kraft, Gilette, Wal-Mart and pretty much everyone else does when they release a faulty product: Fix it at their expense. Mailing me a carburetor and installation instructions is not sufficient -- and, more to the point, that approach is not getting the job done.

A person who contributes code to an OSS project, by contrast, cannot be held liable for "product defects" in the sense that Ford or Sony can be. You do not have any commercial relationship with the individual OSS developer, any more than you had one with the individual Microsoft developer who wrote the buggy SQL Server code, or with the individual engineer who put the Ford Pinto's gas tank in such an awful place. None of these people are responsible under product liability law, because they were not responsible for the decision to release the product.

(Arguably you could go after Linus for defects in OSS software, but Linus didn't sell you anything and has shallow pockets anyway -- trying to hold him liable for his 'product' is probably not going to work, and Linus will get free legal help from Laurence Lessig while you get burned in effigy. At most you might be able to hold RedHat liable for buggy software they sold you, but this is a concern for RedHat, not the individual OSS developer; RedHat has the potential to set all sorts of interesting legal precedents, though, which is why IBM is happy to have them as a separate company instead of a subsidiary.)

I still maintain, and I say this both as an OSS developer and a software consumer, that we would all benefit from tightening the product liability standards for computer software. Until we do, the commercial incentives will be the same as they are today -- to produce shoddy, insecure code and rush it out the door -- and all the "trusted computing" initiatives in the world will not change the underlying economics.

Check out this legislation - an amendment to the DMCA that will allow exactly this sort of fair use under the law. I hope it passes.

You've worked on his staff for how long, now?

I have no direct association with the Senator. I do follow the Congressional Record from time to time, a habit I picked up while studying the machinations of the houses of Congress, and have simply learned how to separate the significant from the fluff. There's a lot of fluff.

Rather than a straightforward and dishonest answer, or a cryptic, yet honest answer? How about just 'truthful'.

My use of two adjectives was not merely a rhetorical attempt to place emphasis on a point by using two words that may appear to some to be redundant. 'Straightforward' carries a connotation of succinctness -- it's direct; it doesn't dance around the issue. 'Honest' refers to truth. I could dumb things down, but I visit here to try and escape the real world for a bit.

Sure, like a lack of morals in politicians just started appearing this generation. Or does 'modern' mean since Ceasar's last reign?

I'm not arguing morals, I'm arguing the leaving of plenty of room for deceit. The creative elusiveness I'm referring to isn't how Henry VIII cleverly extricated himself from all those inconvenient marriages, or the diplomatic prowess of Genghis Kahn. It doesn't really have anything to do with morality, actually. I'm talking about "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is" and all other conversations cut from the same cloth. It may be textbook public relations (a relatively modern industry that started picking up steam in the 20s but hasn't really come into its own until recent decades) but it insults my intelligence, and generally when I point out to people the way perceptions can be managed they notice how pervasive this disingenuity is not only from our elected representatives but in the media in general. People have of course sought to promote the positive and downplay the negative throughout history when their positions relied on the goodwill of others, but the recent art of 'spin' transcends that penny-ante crap because it's a phenomenon that came into play after instantaneous national communication became a reality.

Here's an excerpt from Larry King Live the night of the State of the Union address. Watch the smooth transition between the public persona and actual actions of a Senator who just got caught catering publicly to a constituency that is largely anti-war while privately voting to pave our way back in:

KING: Speaking of power, Senator Feinstein, are you surprised that he [Powell --ac] has suddenly joined the chorus, so to speak, and become as hawkish as the rest?

FEINSTEIN: Yes, I was very surprised, to be very candid with you. I had thought that his diplomatic skills could prevail. I thought he could bring along France and Germany, enable the Security Council to really see how important it is that they compel compliance, that they add their credible threat of force to the arms inspection, and we haven't achieved that quite yet.

And, of course, the danger -- and I know this administration believes in unilateralism and preemption and -- but it carries an enormous future danger for us, and that is that if this nation goes it alone against an Arab nation, it will create a chasm and a divide, the consequences of which we cannot begin to imagine...

KING: But...

FEINSTEIN: ... for a long time to come.

KING: But you've already -- but you've already signed off on that, haven't you?

FEINSTEIN: Well, no, I haven't signed off on it. I...

KING: You voted yea.

FEINSTEIN: Yes, I voted yea. I -- well, let me -- I voted for the Levin resolution which is two steps, going back to the United Nations.

When that lost, I did vote for this resolution because the president, a couple of weeks before, had signaled by his appearance at the United Nations and by his own words that we will lead a coalition, and I, of course, believed that that coalition was going to be through the United Nations.

And I felt that, for the first time, we had a president that was going to work multilaterally, was going to use the leadership prowess of the United States, the diplomacy talents of this great country to bring our allies together so that we spoke with one voice and that that would be the most potent way to force disarmament and force regime change, and I'll still hopeful that that might take place.

Actually comparing how some of these folks speak and vote when they're at work to what they're saying when they're on national news is a good first step towards becoming an educated voter. That's a good chunk of the reason I appreciate having someone like Feingold in the Senate even if our ideologies differ -- he sticks closer to Democratic ideals than the party does.

Tell it like it is, admit when you're wrong, stand up even against adversity for your beliefs, don't judge a book/bill by its cover, and don't jump off a bridge just because everybody else is doing it. I can count on one finger the number of Senators that opposed the PATRIOT Act -- legislation that flew through despite the fact that no Senator could have possibly read through the whole thing, let alone judged its potential impact on our society. Whether or not you agree with the bill, the carelessness displayed on the floor that day was reprehensible. If nothing else (and there is 'else', of course), the fact that Feingold was the only one to stand up against the Senate's abrogation of their duty to us to evaluate the suitability of the legislation they're judging makes me think highly of him and poorly of the rest.

So, do you know what your representatives are really up to, or are you blowing smoke? Don't rely on FOX, CNN, or the rest -- go straight to thomas.loc.gov and do a little research.

Stop using your (AC) Boy Scout manual as a style guide and maybe you can come up with a point...maybe.

This is what depresses me about our generation. Music's about the size of the titties on the singer. Humor is about how loud and lowbrow the comedian can get. They tried to come up with an XFL because football has become too long-winded and didn't have enough dudes called Crusher and He Hate Me. We're just three years away from having our news issued to us in comic books.

Look, there used to be this thing called nuance, and before it became a fragrance it was quite popular to choose your words to say a lot more than you are spelling out. Why is it my problem that you missed the point?

Two weeks ago Feingold introduced the Data-Mining Moratorium Act (S-188).

"A bill to impose a moratorium on the implementation of datamining under the Total Information Awareness program of the Department of Defense and any similar program of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes."

It has three co-sponsors in the Senate: Jon Corzine [D-NJ], Bill Nelson [D-FL], and Ron Wyden [D-OR].

But it isn't just Democrats that are creeped out by the Total Information Awareness initiative. Even some Republicans like Phyllis Schafly and Bob Barr are beginning to express concerns about it.

I think that is precisely the notion of the project, to digitize and preserve these media for long term storage. The biggest challenge (for those of us working on it) is how to choose a media that is transferable and will last. That said, part of the strategy is to encode different levels of quality (Master, Service High and Service Low). This may range from a 96kHz x 24bit WAV to a 256kbs mp3.

It helps a little to understand the raw size of some of this stuff though. For example, a 14 minute audio recording at 96kHz and 24 bits takes up a little over 800mb. DVD storage is simply too small. Most likely the storage will be a massive NAS on the order of which has never been built before.

The article doesn't talk about it, but part of the whole digitization process is the capture of metadata. Catalogers at the Library enter descriptive metadata about the films, recordings and whatnot according to the METS XML standard. Although it would be great to get some volunteer help, the rules for cataloging are arcane and confusing at best. ;) I say this with awe and respect for co-workers who do a great job at it.

(disclaimer: I am a member of the Library team who develops software for the project)

The entertainment industry's attempt to lock everything under DRM may be trumped by legislation that has yet to be passed. The bill tries to restore fair use rights to those who legally acquired a work of non-analog art by allowing the circumvention of DRM by the owner of the work. Quite a pleasant shock, I hope this bill (or something very similar) gets passed.

From the editorial: The NET Act works in two ways: In general, violations are punishable by one year in prison, if the total value of the files exceeds $1,000; or, if the value tops $2,500, not more than five years in prison. Also, if someone logs on to a file-trading network and shares even one MP3 file without permission in "expectation" that others will do the same, full criminal penalties kick in automatically.

It would be even better if there were a similar site for bills being considered. I did a keyword search for CBDTPA and got 0 results... hmmm.

I assume you used Thomas? Try the full name (or even a subset). A search on "Consumer Broadband" brings up S.2048 as the #2 result.

if they charge you for cd's can you legally copy copyrighted stuff to them?
Actually, while the law doesn't say it is legal to copy copyrighted stuff, it does say that the copyright holders agree not to sue individuals who do it for personal use. (I think the holders agree to this by signing up for their share of the "pre-paid royalty.")
US Title 17 ... "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."

Why-do-I-care panders: The other day, Some Guy took his radical casemod out for a bit of 802.11 action at 36,000 feet. That's amazing, beats the onboard movie.

Yeah, becuase no one would ever use the thoughts "in [the] minds [of the framers]" as a tool to interpret the Constitution. That's why I am the only person who has ever heard of the Federalist Papers.

Ridiculous.

Most books and music that are published never get a lot of circulation and aren't valuable enough to be worth publishing over the long term. These works slowly degrade over time and become unavailable in the future. Will you be able to play the CD you buy today in 90+ years? No. So unless somebody makes an extroridnary effort to archive this material in the hope that EVENTUALLY it will become legal to copy it, much of it will cease to exist.

The Library of Congress is the nation's oldest federal cultural institution, and it serves as the research arm of Congress. It is also the largest library in the world, with more than 120 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 18 million books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and 54 million manuscripts.

Most books and music that are published never get a lot of circulation and aren't valuable enough to be worth publishing over the long term. These works slowly degrade over time and become unavailable in the future. Will you be able to play the CD you buy today in 90+ years? No. So unless somebody makes an extroridnary effort to archive this material in the hope that EVENTUALLY it will become legal to copy it, much of it will cease to exist.

The Library of Congress is the nation's oldest federal cultural institution, and it serves as the research arm of Congress. It is also the largest library in the world, with more than 120 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 18 million books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and 54 million manuscripts.

"The best way (only way) right now is to be an intern and watch over some guy who did that too and move up."

You must live in the wrong state. When I ran for the US House last year (decided on very short notice), Google pointed me to the Louisiana Department of State, I found out there what was needed ($600 payed to the Department of State), filled out the paperwork, mailed in the money order, and that was that. The rest was figured out from the numerous and frequent mailings I ended up getting (and still get) from the state and the Federal Election Commission.

And it's not like Louisiana is world renown for its internet presence and connectivity or anything.

"What if you're just a simple decent qualified person who wants to run for Selectman/Mayor/Rep/Senator/Governor/President? I went to the Senate's web site [senate.gov], for instance (and many others using google) trying to find out HOW TO RUN!"

Of course they won't. If you bothered to peruse the US Constitution a little, you'd realize that it is not the federal government's place to tell the states how exactly their elections should be run. Different states have different requirements (beyond the lone federal requirement of "You must be over 30") and different qualifications.

"Just yesterday I thought it would be sweet if there was a web site people could go to to see how to run for political leadership in their state."

Find your state's Department of State. That's usually the best place to start.

"States maintain a web site like I described and one that would also show WHO is running"

Like this?

"and what they DO and what they have DONE"

You have two options. One is to go to the congresscritter's website in question and look at the legislation they sponsor and/or co-sponsor, and to THOMAS to see how they voted on legislation.

The other is to go to non-partisan information sources like Project Vote Smart, who attempt to make the information more digestable.

"And each candidate would have his own web site hosted (or just linked.) FAIRNESS IN EVERY WAY!"

Fair to everybody except for the taxpayers. As a former independent candidate and as a taxpayer, I do not want tax dollars going to pay for private political campaigns. Candidates (especially for federal office) get enough free attention from the press as it is that it really isn't needed.

"Nobody votes because theres a bunch of bums we don't know anything"

Because the information isn't there to know, or because they don't bother trying to find out?

"This would be a pretty cheap way for equal spending that everybody keeps pushing for,"

First off, it would be even cheaper if the taxpayers didn't have to pay any of it.

Secondly, the problem isn't "equal spending," the problem is things like "truth in advertising" and "honesty about campaign fundraising and spending." And if you need a law to require candidates to register this information with, say, the FEC, it's already too late. If you need to twist their arms to get them to share this information, they shouldn't be in office to begin with.

So, is there a Project Gutenberg for music? I can find sheet music on Mutopia, but where are the public domain recordings? The Recording Academy has a preservation project to preserve all kinds of recorded music, but no word on whether they plan to make the public domain works available. The RA turned over part of its materials to the US Library of Congress, which does maintain a collection of recordings, but again there is no clear provision for obtaining public domain recordings for pleasure. There is a system for obtaining certain recordings online or as a copy, for academic or research purposes. So, where is our our public domain recorded music archive?

So, is there a Project Gutenberg for music? I can find sheet music on Mutopia, but where are the public domain recordings? The Recording Academy has a preservation project to preserve all kinds of recorded music, but no word on whether they plan to make the public domain works available. The RA turned over part of its materials to the US Library of Congress, which does maintain a collection of recordings, but again there is no clear provision for obtaining public domain recordings for pleasure. There is a system for obtaining certain recordings online or as a copy, for academic or research purposes. So, where is our our public domain recorded music archive?

So, is there a Project Gutenberg for music? I can find sheet music on Mutopia, but where are the public domain recordings? The Recording Academy has a preservation project to preserve all kinds of recorded music, but no word on whether they plan to make the public domain works available. The RA turned over part of its materials to the US Library of Congress, which does maintain a collection of recordings, but again there is no clear provision for obtaining public domain recordings for pleasure. There is a system for obtaining certain recordings online or as a copy, for academic or research purposes. So, where is our our public domain recorded music archive?

At least remember their names, what they did and what is known about their fates.

From the udel academic honesty policy:

Academic honesty and integrity lie at the heart of any educational enterprise. Students are expected to do their own work and neither to give nor to receive assistance during quizzes, examinations, or other class exercises.
---

My university's academic honesty policy (Here, page through to p. 54 (PDF page 47)) is much longer, but boils down to the same thing - Dont cheat, Dont help anyone else cheat, if you do we're gonna beat you to death with a textbook.

Legally (copyright law - See This site) I am not sure if code for school counts as a "work for hire" in which case the copyright is held by the school, or as an original work by an author (an "answer for a test" is considered a work for hire). I do not know how the interpretation would hold up in a legal challenge, but if you want to cover yourself you could place a notice in all of your programs claiming copyright (again, the "works for hire" clause may invalidate this. Check with a real lawyer.).

As far as academic honesty policies go, I am SURE that I am in violation of the Hofstra policy (which states that students "must not only avoid cheating, but the apppearance of cheating" - something I've been WAITING for the chance to challenge since I find it obscenely offensive to allow a professor to presume a student is cheating if their paper is too close to the edge of their desk). Certainly by making answers to lab exercises available I violate this policy.

Udel's policy seems more realistic - you are not to give or receive assistance on [any assignment]. I don't believe that you violate the spirit of this statement by making your work available, since your intent is (hopefully) not to have people grab your work, change variable names and submit it as their own.
As for violating the LETTER of the policy - intentionally or not, there is the potential for this to be viewed as "giving assistance" on an assignment. Personally, I think it is no more harmful than talking about the assignment with another student, but in the strictest sense of nearly every academic honesty policy even TALKING about the assignments can be considered giving/receiving assistance.


BASICALLY, this really long post boils down to "See what your school says, then come back and tell us (or at least me)". Whatever you do, try to get it in writing that your site does not violate the academic (dis)honesty policy of your university, that way if someone decides they dont like it in the future and you need to defend yourself against allegations of cheating/collaboration you have something tangible and not "But Mr. Foo in legal said X last year...", only to find (as too often happens) that Mr. Foo has either left or changed his position on the issue.

Best of luck

I agree. Seanator McCain is very conservative. He is hawkish on the Iraq issue, and conservative on social issues such as abortion. And where these social issues intersect with tech issues, he will favor a conservative social stance. (Take, for example, his sponsorship of a resolution designating October "Children's Internet Safety Month", a term of dubious nature which could easily fit any one of a number of different positions.)

I myself am very liberal, and disagree with him on many such issues.

Nonetheless, John McCain is a man that I respect very much. I believe that, unlike come of his colleagues, he does his very best to serve the people. His long and vigorous struggle for campaign finance reform provides ample evidence, as do his efforts to curb wasteful spending, even in areas traditionally favored by conservatives, like Defense. He has also shown his willingness to work with Democrats on bipartisan issues. For these reasons, I respect him one hell of a lot more than Bush, or Cheney, or Hollings, all of whom spend more time serving their corporate cronies than their constituents. McCain and Senator Russ Feingold are, to my mind, the finest statesmen currently serving in Congress.

As I say, I disagree with Senator McCain on many subjects. Given his record, however, I think he is likely to handle this appointment in a way that the tech community will approve of. I suspect that he will put up a vigorous fight against the CBDTPA, on the grounds that it's a textbook case of special interests trying to buy legislation.

One thing I'm sure of: it's going to be an interesting ride!

Jesus, man, you sound like an arrogant asshole. Also, your estimate is little better than the first guy's.

From their website:
The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world, with more than 120 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 18 million books, 2.5 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.5 million maps, and 54 million manuscripts.

The 54 million manuscripts is the wildcard; from dictionary.com, a manuscript is A typewritten or handwritten version of a book, an article, a document, or other work, especially the author's own copy, prepared and submitted for publication in print. So there may many more than 18 million books in the LOC (if you include the handwritten or nonpublished ones.)

Many of these works have been saved by individuals who were not the original producers or copyright holders of the material. When CD players that support a particular flavor of DRM become rare, it will be illegal for me, as an individual to use a device to convert the files to a new format that I can listen to.

Furthermore, the proper way to preserve musical recordings like 78 rpm records is to preserve the means of playing those records. For example. 78 rpm record players are still readily available, they just take some work to find.

If I had a collection of rare audio recordings that happened to be stored on betamax or old 8" floppy disks, I shouldn't have to keep searching for working beta and floppy drives to be able to listen to my recordings over the next 50 years. As an individual, I should be allowed to make copies for my personal use (under Fair Use statutes) so that I can continue to listen to them after the format dies.

As another example, Circuit City's DiVX users had an option that allowed them to "purchase" a DiVX disc -- that is, they could pay a price for unlimited use of a disc. However, in 1999 or 2000 (I don't remember the exact date) a year or so after the service was terminated, the servers that were in charge of permissions were turned off. That means that any DiVX discs that you "purchased" were compeletely unusable. It wouldn't matter if you had 100 working DiVX players, you still can't access the content. Now, imagine that you had some rare, unprofitable music recording that had been made using a similar, failed technology...

Also, while it may be best to listen to analog 78s using 78rpm turntables (as a non-audiophile I'm not as wedded to this, but I'll take your word for it), digitally encoded data won't lose their quality if they are converted, in a lossless manner from technology X to technology Y.

Putting these recordings on P2P networks for anyone to download just denies descendants of the original artists of those recordings their rightful royalties.

That argument is a bit disingenuous in this context. Klawan's comments don't say anything about

• A. putting the recordings on P2P networks, or
• B. Denying royalties.

The voting public isn't stupid; it just isn't hung up on abstractions like "states' rights." Folks just think it sounds catchy and legitimizing, and the actual agenda is a menu of desired results. Very pragmatic.

no, they're stupid. the voting public is much like sheep. the vast majority of countries (ie the voting base) will follow people that *sound* like they're making the most amount of sense and are appealing to their wants and needs. hardly anyone bothers to ask why anymore. few people know that http://thomas.loc.gov exists, let alone visit there frequently enough to have the basic understanding of who they're voting for and what they truely stand for.

News:Closely watched copyright case goes to jury - San Francisco Chronicle - 2 hours ago
Groups at odds over hidden copyright fees - The Globe and Mail - 11 Dec 2002
Defense rests in ElcomSoft copyright trial - San Jose Mercury News - 10 Dec 2002
New! Try Google News: Search news for copyright or browse the latest headlines

US Copyright Office
US Copyright Office is an office of public record for copyright registration and
deposit of copyright material. ... (Legal Notices)Legal Notices. About Copyright. ...
Description: Office of public record for copyright registration and deposit of copyright material.
Category: Regional>NorthAmerica>...>LibraryofCongre ss
www.loc.gov/copyright/ - 36k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

Copyright Website
Copyright Website - The Copyright Wizard. Copyright your online assets -
online. ... Copyright Wizard. Register copyright for your Website - online! ...
Description: Endeavoring to provide real world, practical and relevant copyright information.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.benedict.com/ - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

Copyright Clearance Center: Permissions Made Easy
... Do you want to file a copyright for your work? ... Note: copyright.com
supplies permissions but not the copyrighted content itself. ...
Description: Offering licensing systems that facilitate compliance with the copyright law and promote the constitution...
Category: Society>Law>...>CopyrightServices>Licensi ng
www.copyright.com/ - 22k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

SUL: Copyright & Fair Use
... Overview of Copyright Law Copyright Management Center of the University
of Texas System Administration Office of General Counsel. ...
Description: A very good starting place built by the Stanford University.
Category: Arts>Music>Resources>Copyright
fairuse.stanford.edu/ - 5k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

10 Big Myths about copyright explained
10 Big Myths about copyright explained. An attempt ... Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton. Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. ...
Description: Answers to common myths about copyright from Brad Templeton, former publisher at ClariNet Communications...
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

What is Copyright Protection?
What is Copyright Protection? A brief memorandum regarding copyrights
in general and as may be applied to the internet. Researched ...
Description: Information about copyrights in general, and as applied to the internet.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.whatiscopyright.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

TITLE 17
... TITLE 17 TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS. CHAPTER 1 SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE
OF COPYRIGHT; CHAPTER 2 COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER; CHAPTER ...
Description: Title 17- Copyrights- of the US Code in its entirity from Cornell University
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ - 5k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

US Copyright Office, Copyright Basics (Circular 1)
Circular 1. Copyright © Basics Español September 2000. Copyright
Basics. Format Note. Table of Contents. ... WHAT IS COPYRIGHT? Copyright ...
www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pages

THE UT SYSTEM CRASH COURSE IN COPYRIGHT
Copyright Crash Course Logo with Link to Copyright Crash Course, Want to use, images?
Want to create things with them? You need a crash course in copyright... ...
Description: Beginner's guide to all aspects of copyright law, from the University of Texas.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtin dx.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

IPR Notice and Disclaimers
... Copyright © 1994-2002 W3C ® (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut National
de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University), All ...
www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Dissatisfied with your search results? Help us improve.

GoogleHome - AdvertisewithUs - SearchSolutions - Services&Tools - Jobs,Press,&Help
2002 Google

The individuals who are members of the militia of the United States are clearly defined in US Law. Whether or not there exists list contains all and only those who qualify is a separate question.

No but it clearly states that a well ordered militia is the reason for your right to own guns. Those two phrases are clearly related. If they simply wanted all people to have guns they would not have included the first phrase.

First, it does not stipulate a well ordered militia, it specifies a well regulated militia. This refers at the time to military discipline, not laws. To understand the context of the debate, see Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Paper 29 quoting one of his critics:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.

Now I'll answer your last question; my other answers will flow from there.

Finally I would like to know what your definition of a "well ordered militia" is as opposed to a collection oof citizens. What do you think the founding fathers meant when they said "well ordered" and why do you think they put that phrase in the second amendment?

For additional information on what the founders meant, I turn to the Federalist Papers, No. 29.

[emphasis added]
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen.
...
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice...To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
...
yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia....[I]t will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

First, Hamilton assumes that "militia" is a general term. That is, "well-regulated militia" is clearly a subset of "militia"--the general citizenry.

Second, at the writing of the Constitution, there was no guarantee just what the federal government would do with the militia. There was no set plan for the regulation thereof. It was up in the air.

Third, Hamilton thought it would be pointless and infeasible to train the entire militia to the point of being "well-regulated". Instead, he proposed training only a portion of the militia. Note that at present, this is roughly the case in federal law; the "organized militia" is constituted by the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" is comprised of all other elligible citizens.

Analysis: In spite of the fact that the authors of the Bill of Rights knew full well the entire citizenry--"the people", the militia--would most likely not be trained to the point of being "well-regulated", they wrote the Second Amendment to protect the right "of the people". They could have limited the protection to those citizens the federal government trained. They did not.

Had they done so, the Second Amendment would be a puzzling document indeed. It would say to the federal government, in effect, "You cannot abridge the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, unless you first stop training them. Then it's perfectly all right. But as long as you're training them, their right is protected." That's not a limit. It's an irrationality. Further, putting such control over the militia's armament would go against the spirit of the continued comments of Hamiliton:

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

So, my answer to your second paragraph is that yes, all citizens are a part of the militia whether they like it or not. Being in the militia has absolutely no responsibilites attached to it. No requirement for training, not for registration, not for being under the command of the president or any other military personell. Such militia is not probably not well-regulated, but it is still militia.

Now, I actually held back the best part of Hamilton's remarks. Here it is:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Now for the question of whether the Second Amendment applies blacks, Indians, and women. My answer is yes.

The right is not limited to the well-regulated militia. The stated reason for the protection is that the well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of the State, but the protection itself is of a "right of the people". Thus, the question is not whether black, Indians, and women are part of the militia, the question is whether they are part of "the people". The laws that were "passed to include blacks, indians and women in the rest of society" were intended to extend the full rights of citizenship. Indeed, this issue was part of the force behind the Dred Scott decision that helped spark the Civil War. That is, the court denied blacks the rights of citizenship, in part because:

[emphasis added]
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction...and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

with the DMCA.

Disclaimer: IANAL

IIRC, either there is a Library of Congress decision that there are a couple of situations where the Anti-Circumvention provision does not apply to software or hardware that circumvents copy portection.

One of those situations is in with respect to a compiled list of URLs and controll information that web proxy filters may be using.

The other situation I seem to recall reading some place was if the technology in use was obsolete or had known faults that prevent legitimate access.

Out of my own curiosity, wouldn't the fact that there is a fault with the anti-circumvention software that causes it to fail to protect against new cirvumvention tools imply that the anti-circumvention, or encryption tool in question, was, well Obsolete?

-Rusty

You're right -- technical solutions shouldn't be a substitute for good parenting and supervision. But a little bit of technical wizardry does help. You do keep the cookie jar out of their reach, right?

As for how it's going to be enforced, it's the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration according to the HR Bill.

• • `(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, that it is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

• • `(B) the material depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

• • `(C) taken as a whole, the material lacks serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

`(2) MINOR- The term `minor' means any person under 13 years of age.

• • `(1) HARMFUL TO MINORS- The term `harmful to minors' means, with respect to material, that--

• • `(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, that it is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

• • `(B) the material depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

• • `(C) taken as a whole, the material lacks serious, literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

• • `(2) MINOR- The term `minor' means any person under 13 years of age.

Z39.50 is also a light weight protocol and studies shows that searching many databases in parallel is not a problem, it is usually the database servers that are the bottle neck.

Ok. Assuming you don't just want to delete the spam (i.e. you wish to make things complicated for yourself). You should do the following:

1. Consult Copyright.gov
a. Notably, see Circular 21 on page 12 they cover Reproduction by Libraries and Archives.
b. Also see FL 102 on Fair Use.
2. Consult a Lawyer. After reading that, and perhaps researching the issue some more, if you feel that you are still within your fair use rights and you wish to stand by your ethics and values that make you want to keep the spam on the website, Then you really should consider contacting a lawyer. You could try and just ignore the email. I would request that they send you an official letter (via registered mail) stating the legal reasons for the threat.

Also, Note: Contrary to what some comments on this site indicate, the spammer does not have to include a copyright notice on the email. This is especially true if you consider the act of emailing to be a form of publishing the message. See http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc

Actually I want to add to this. The majority here are not lawyers in any capacity, and the advice you see here reflects that fact. There's a reason it takes several years to be a lawyer. And no Websters(TM) isn't going to make anyone an instant lawyer. If the "/." are going to be true to what they profess to believe (the results of a "/." poll come to mind)? Then they need to have a firmer grasp of both the legal, and political system. A court, nor a politician is going to be impressed by your ability to yell at the top of your voice "I want my rights!", or "You evil people are taking away my rights!". The opposition has a firm grasp of both processes, and the results reflect that fact. The "/." wants to change things? Then drag yourself out of your self-imposed isolation, and study the law and politics with the same fevor that you devoted to technical issues, otherwise you'll lose face when you complain about the results..

US Legal resource

Danish law in english

Foregn law resources

US guide to Denmark

The US political process & advocacy

SRW is a Search and Retreive Web Service that makes full use of XML and XPath. This is backed by the Library of Congress, and version 1.0 is released today:

http://www.loc.gov/srw/

This is from the Z39.50 Implementor's Group, an attempt to bring the experience of the last 20+ years with the bibliographic protocol that supports 99% of library searching into the mainstream.

Check it out!

--Azaroth

Why can't you go to a library and checkout/read Penthouse?

You can.

Because Penthouse does not fit in with the mission of a library.

It certainly does.

If your local library has an inadaquate collection I suggest you try a bigger library. Worst case you can always get it at the Library of Congress. (Enter PENTHOUSE as search title and check the second result. I'd give you a direct link but their search engine uses moronic web sessions with temporary URL's that time-out.)

LC Control Number: 73640721
Type of Material: Serial (Periodical, Newspaper, etc.)
Uniform Title: [Penthouse (New York, N.Y.)]
ISSN: 0090-2020
LC Classification: AP2 .P413
Dewey Class No.: 051

I don't have a problem with a library using some form of control to block access to sites that lie outside of the mission of a public library.

I agree 100%, chuckle. Therefore libraries should have unrestricted access to the entire internet and carry as much printed material and other media as physically possible. INCLUDING access to Penthouse.com and a copy of Penthouse Volume 1 Issue 1. I may as well piss off a few Europeans while I'm at it and specificly include Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf.

If you think you the right to say some material is offensive and not within the mission of a library then you better damn well expect ME to have the same right. I'd start with the Bible, it's filled with sex, violence, even incest! Can't get much more offensive than incest! After that I'd ban all the other religion's holy books too. (It wouldn't be very fair to discriminate against just one religion.)

-

I think this is a good article, and ending the progression in 1998 was a typical conclusions since no major events occured after that. But why end it with the Bono Act when you have the DMCA right after it! What could be worse than your right being abused (as the author explains) than having no rights at all via DMCA. This just shows you how ignorat the majority of people are when it comes to this issue. Except for online geeks, this isn't an issue for people who would read that article and feel sorry for authors who died 80 years ago because their work is not released.

I think this is a good article, and ending the progression in 1998 was a typical conclusions since no major events occured after that. But why end it with the Bono Act when you have the DMCA right after it! What could be worse than your right being abused (as the author explains) than having no rights at all via DMCA. This just shows you how ignorat the majority of people are when it comes to this issue. Except for online geeks, this isn't an issue for people who would read that article and feel sorry for authors who died 80 years ago because their work is not released.

-Cyc

You misunderstand. This is a format for the metadata and layout. Metadata such as structural metadata, linking one image to another (say, to describe formally that images 1-100.jpg are a sequence of stills from a video, and that 101-200.jpg are thumbnails of same) or technical metadata about the image creation/capture process (and a whoooole lot more which I won't even start on).

This stuff is important, complex and probably not for 99% of the Slashdot crowd. We (at a national copyright library) are using METS (Metdata Encoding and Transmission Standard) as metadata on our digital objects, and METS has an extension schema for AV stuff, which seems to be similar to this.

You misunderstand. This is a format for the metadata and layout. Metadata such as structural metadata, linking one image to another (say, to describe formally that images 1-100.jpg are a sequence of stills from a video, and that 101-200.jpg are thumbnails of same) or technical metadata about the image creation/capture process (and a whoooole lot more which I won't even start on).

This stuff is important, complex and probably not for 99% of the Slashdot crowd. We (at a national copyright library) are using METS (Metdata Encoding and Transmission Standard) as metadata on our digital objects, and METS has an extension schema for AV stuff, which seems to be similar to this.

For those interested in actually taking an active role in government (assuming you live in the U.S.), take a look at HR5522 from the 107th Congress (House of Representatives Act). Not yet passed, but referred to committee as recently as this month. You'll have to wait until all your reps get back from vaction to talk to them about it I'm sure, but speak up, they do listen. Or, more preciscely, they do count the amount of positive/negative feedback they get, assuming you live in their district (ALWAYS INCLUDE YOUR ADDRESS ON CORRESPONDENCE WITH THEM OR IT WILL NOT BE COUNTED!!!!).

I haven't looked in great detail at the contents of the bill, but the gist of it seems to be to scale back the DMCA, as it is obviously bad.

The two sponsors of this bill are Michael Honda (California) and Zoe Lofgren (California).

Latest status has it going to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, be particularly vocal to your representatives if they serve on that committee.

You can look at the legislation yourself by going to Thomas and typing "hr5522" in the "Bill Number" text field at the top.

The government may not do things you like, but for the most part, all the information you need to speak out against it in an informed fashion is available to you for free. Use it, your tax dollars pay for it.

Ever heard of Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clements? Magically, he managed to keep a copyright on his shit. Or how about Lewis Carroll, aka. Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson?

Do I have to use my real name on the form? Can I use a stage name or a pen name?

There is no legal requirement that the author be identified by his or her real name on the application form. For further information, see FL 101. If filing under a fictitious name, check the "Pseudonymous" box at space 2.

Ever heard of Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clements? Magically, he managed to keep a copyright on his shit. Or how about Lewis Carroll, aka. Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson?

Do I have to use my real name on the form? Can I use a stage name or a pen name?

There is no legal requirement that the author be identified by his or her real name on the application form. For further information, see FL 101. If filing under a fictitious name, check the "Pseudonymous" box at space 2.

Anyone care to guess which useful databases are about to be locked off to anyone who can't cough up the required dough?

The argriculture database is defintely Agricola

The legal one is harder to guess. There are really no good legal database hosted by federal government. FLITE is mostly useless. GPO Acess and THOMAS are both potential targets, but those are so important to general public, as oppose to relativly small number to researchers for DOE's PubScience.

IF they do shutdown those two. Then it's time to re-read declaration of Independence:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Unfortunately that link expired from the cache of the server (looks like searches are stored on the host side there.) You can find it by going to thomas.loc.gov and searching for "S.2537.is" as the bill number.

WHAT ARE YOU QUOTING?

The text of the bill is here. It doesn't say anything like that. Neither of the restrictions you discuss are in the bill.

This seems to me a perfectly good way to make an internet playpen without eating internet freedom. Please don't scaremonger.

The passing of new law to limit existing is the problem. The amendment of existing law is the more sensible way of going about it.

I see. Nothing could possibly be more satisfactory.

If you look up the text of this bill you will see that its purpose is in fact "to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes."

The Slashdot summary is as usual somewhat misleading. This bill if passed will amend existing law.

If anybody can find out where it goes from there - I can't seem to find the text. If this text could be found, then maybe we would have some kind of "backup" to let our cable operator know that we know what the law is, and not let them yank us around (it may or may not help, though)...

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents No records found with
Please enter another Search Phrase.

Apparently IE don't work so well as Ms. Tubbs would like...

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Doc Contents No records found with
Please enter another Search Phrase.

Apparently IE don't work so well as Ms. Tubbs would like...