Slashdot Mirror

This is fascinating - from both an artistic and a geeky point of view.

From his photo "Storage Facilities for Hay" in the architecture section, you can start to pick apart the process that he used... By knowing the simple fact that smoke/steam rises, and examining the clouds - you can see rainbow-like effects.

What this really shows is that not all 3 layers of exposure glass (film) were not taken at precisely the same moment. In fact, it's backwards of how we even refer to color... it's most clearly Blue, Green, Red.

Damn, it wasn't like that at all. He had a three-eyed camera. Should've browsed the entire site first.

In the self-portrait by the river, the water, unlike everything else in the picture, seems... blurry, oily, I can't quite get it, but it doesn't look like a normal river. This might be evidence of three pictures taken in quick sucession from the same spot.

I imagine them switching cameras somehat like modern Formula 1/CART/Indy pitcrews change tyres. Have to be quick so the scenery changes the least.

If you go to the "how they did it" page, you'll see they did some extensive "color correction," or as we normally call it "photoshopping." check out this

You can find large JPGs and TIFFs of everything that the LOC has of Mr. Prokudin-Gorskii at this link or here for just the color photographs.
You can also order high-quality prints of these images as well.

props to Ben for finding this.

zsazsa

You can find large JPGs and TIFFs of everything that the LOC has of Mr. Prokudin-Gorskii at this link or here for just the color photographs.
You can also order high-quality prints of these images as well.

props to Ben for finding this.

zsazsa

In this particular case, I think the man in red and blue was wearing colours that didn't show up clearly under a particular filter. The man is there, he is just very very dim.

There are shots were the was definite movement between shots. This one for example. The colourful shimmer on the water is probably caused by the fact that the water moved slightly between shots.

Most cool, I think.

"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"

Actually, it *is* from three different exposures. Notice how there are "ghost people" in some pictures, and how some of the little children look. There's one shot where you can clearly tell the kid moved his head between shots.

Look at the "Russian Children on a Hillside" picture on this page: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ethnic.html

Still *very* cool though...

Some of these images contain elements that moved through the picture between different shots being taken with different filters. You can see this clearly in photoshop. For example, in this image, if you turn OFF different combinations of R,G and B channels in photoshop (and probably GIMP too), you can see a man in the background appear and disappear. In the composite photo, he appears to be glowing with red and blue halos. In the individual channels, sometimes he is there, and sometimes he is not!

When I was a kid, the whole world was colour but monaural. Then, when I was about 12, I started fooling around with my parents' audio equipment. From then on, I could hear my whole world in glorious stereophonic sound! Man, those mono years sucked by comparison. I took piano lessons when I was a kid. I wonder what they would have sounded like in stereo?

Anyway, I took a class on photography in high school and did a presentation on colour photo printing. During my research, I saw a lot of early attempts at colour photography using black-and-white film. None were as clear as the pictures on that site, tho. Most didn't have the red, green, and blue colour plates quite lined up correctly causing red, green, and blue flaring at the edges of objects.

In fact, on closer inspection, some of Prokudin-Gorskii's pictures look like they were done by snapping three pictures in quick succession with the different filters. Take a look at the water in this one, which was probably not calm at the time. Also, look at the little guy on the far left in this picture. I guess he couldn't sit still!

Still, this photographer was really clever! Now if I can just figure out how to record stereophonic sound on a monaural tape recorder...

When I was a kid, the whole world was colour but monaural. Then, when I was about 12, I started fooling around with my parents' audio equipment. From then on, I could hear my whole world in glorious stereophonic sound! Man, those mono years sucked by comparison. I took piano lessons when I was a kid. I wonder what they would have sounded like in stereo?

Anyway, I took a class on photography in high school and did a presentation on colour photo printing. During my research, I saw a lot of early attempts at colour photography using black-and-white film. None were as clear as the pictures on that site, tho. Most didn't have the red, green, and blue colour plates quite lined up correctly causing red, green, and blue flaring at the edges of objects.

In fact, on closer inspection, some of Prokudin-Gorskii's pictures look like they were done by snapping three pictures in quick succession with the different filters. Take a look at the water in this one, which was probably not calm at the time. Also, look at the little guy on the far left in this picture. I guess he couldn't sit still!

Still, this photographer was really clever! Now if I can just figure out how to record stereophonic sound on a monaural tape recorder...

There are some interesting artifacts of the process. Look at the water in the second photo set. Or the top half of the pole.

Has the copyright been registered with the US Copyright Office? See the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress site and their excellent FAQ for details.

If the copyright has been registered, it substantially increases the chances of successful litigation, and allows treble damages.

Speaking of suits, is the copyright held by someone who has the will and the means to litigate this? If not, has it (or will it) be1919igned properly to such an entity?

Has the copyright been registered with the US Copyright Office? See the Copyright Office at the Library of Congress site and their excellent FAQ for details.

If the copyright has been registered, it substantially increases the chances of successful litigation, and allows treble damages.

Speaking of suits, is the copyright held by someone who has the will and the means to litigate this? If not, has it (or will it) be1919igned properly to such an entity?

I'm not entirely convinced about this argument, but then IANAL. In particular it seems a bit of a stretch from "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression" to "expressive". OTOH, the categories of copyrightable work are clearly all expressive so maybe "expressive work" is a good definition for "copyrightable work".

Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

If computer programs aren't expressive speach, then according to the Copyright office's website, it won't be covered under copyright law. See
Circular 1, which lists Copyrightable works. They don't have a category for compute programs, but make this recommendation:

For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"

It goes further by saying that "works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression" "are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection".

So, if programs aren't expressive speach, then where does that leave the copyright status of the million of computer programs out there? Is that a Pandora's box that the court wants to open?

Now, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I'm not sure where or if this is in actual law. If anybody else knows, I'll be interested in hearing.

Slashdotters across the country should be informed of , with its inclusion of a bill by y Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA) allowing BabyBells to prevent local ISPs from accessing their DSL lines.

ISPs typically don't, as far as I know, "access DSL lines", if by that you mean "provide 'DSLtone' on DSL lines"; that's done by the ILEC or a CLEC. (Covad and Rhythms are CLECs, and Northpoint was a CLEC).

A DSL customer can access an ISP over their DSL ; if that's what you mean, then, for what it's worth, H. R. 1542 says, according to the contents as shown on the US Library of Congress THOMAS service, says:

SEC. 5. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Part I of title II of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by section 4, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 233. INTERNET CONSUMERS FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

`(a) PURPOSE- It is the purpose of this section to ensure that Internet users have freedom of choice of Internet service provider.

`(b) OBLIGATIONS OF INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS- Each incumbent local exchange carrier has the duty to provide--

`(1) Internet users with the ability to subscribe to and have access to any Internet service provider that interconnects with such carrier's high speed data service;

`(2) any Internet service provider with the right to acquire the facilities and services necessary to interconnect with such carrier's high speed data service for the provision of Internet access service; and

`(3) any Internet service provider with the ability to collocate[sic] equipment in accordance with the provisions of section 251, to the extent necessary to achieve the objectives of paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.

`(c) DEFINITIONS- As used in this section--

`(1) INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `Internet service provider' means any provider of Internet access service.

`(2) INCUMBENT LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER- The term `incumbent local exchange carrier' has the same meaning as provided in section 251(h).'.

H. R. 1542 also says:

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 251 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 251) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

`(j) EXEMPTION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (c) and (d), the Commission shall not require an incumbent local exchange carrier to--

`(A) provide unbundled access to any network elements used in the provision of any high speed data service, other than those network elements described in section 51.319 of the Commission's regulations (47 C.F.R. 51.319), as in effect on January 1, 1999; or

`(B) offer for resale at wholesale rates any high speed data service.

It defines a "high-speed data service" thus:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS

(a) AMENDMENTS- Section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153) is amended--

(1) by redesignating paragraph (20) as paragraph (21);

(2) by redesignating paragraphs (21) through (52) as paragraphs (24) through (54), respectively;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (19) the following new paragraph:

`(20) HIGH SPEED DATA SERVICE- The term `high speed data service' means any service that consists of or includes the offering of a capability to transmit, using a packet-switched or successor technology, information at a rate that is generally not less than 384 kilobits per second in at least one direction.';

This all sounds as if it states that ILECs have the duty to let ISPs connect to their ATM cloud in such a way as to let them send cells to and receive cells from users connected to the central office via DSL.

I don't know whether merely stating that they have the duty to do so means that the government is empowered to force them to do so, however, nor do I know whether, even if they are empowered to do so, they'll bother doing so.

In any case, note that I Am Not A Lawyer, and don't even play one on TV, and it may require a lawyer with a Big Fat Book Of U.S. Code (or to, for example, the Web site for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, which, it appears, will let you look up stuff in the U.S. Code), so that they can plow through the Communications Act of 1934 and all the various amendments to it, and figure out what the law would say after all the changes made to it by H. R. 1542, and with the law experience to say what the hell that would all mean.

Sadly, I have to agree. This is just one step towards the deregulation of 'Corporate America' out of many. In terms of radio and TV, it dates back to at least 1996, with the Telecommunications Act.

If the DMCA is not used to stifle academic research on cryptography then it is worthless. Nobody who has supported this law could be so naive as to think otherwise.

Apparently people were "naive" enough to support this law without stifling academic research on cryptography because encryption research is given an exception in the DMCA.

Further, it seems to me that Prof. Felton's research was not a violation of the DMCA, but IANAL, so read the following and decide for yourself.

The folowing is Chapter 12, Sec. 1201, paragraph (g) of Public Law 105-304 (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02 281:|TOM:/bss/d105query.html|) is a copy of the whole law for those who want to read it.

`(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH-

`(1) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection--

`(A) the term `encryption research' means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and

`(B) the term `encryption technology' means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms.

`(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if--

`(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work;

`(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research;

`(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and

`(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

`(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include--

`(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security;

`(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and

`(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided.

`(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to--

`(A) develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and

`(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2).

`(5) REPORT TO CONGRESS- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the Register of Copyrights and the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce shall jointly report to the Congress on the effect this subsection has had on--

`(A) encryption research and the development of encryption technology;

`(B) the adequacy and effectiveness of technological measures designed to protect copyrighted works; and

`(C) protection of copyright owners against the unauthorized access to their encrypted copyrighted works.

The report shall include legislative recommendations, if any

The bill is online. This isn't just "dangerous copies of humans"... there is research into alternatives for people who are unable to have children any other way. "It shall be unlawful for a person to engage in a human cloning procedure with the intent of implanting the resulting cellular product into a uterus." This is current research that will not go forward, funding or no funding. "A person shall be considered to have engaged in a human cloning procedure for purposes of subsection (a) if the person transfers the nucleus of a human somatic cell into an egg cell from which the nucleus has been removed." This will be interesting.

''(B) a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

What's up with that bill ? Is that true or is it just FUD, a lie ? Since i'm not from the US i don't know anything about their laws.

The bill S.1618 was introduced in 1998, but didn't make it into law. There's more information on this at SpamCop.

(What's particularly silly about this is that so many of the spammers are outside the US. If, as has happened, I'm in the UK and I get spammed by a guy from the Far East who's faking an address in Latin America, how can what the US Senate might or might not have thought about it be in the least applicable?)

Anyway, if i reply i only get a "user killed" or something similar...

NEVER REPLY, at least, not to the sender. If you do, they'll keep your address on file (and possibly sell it on) because your address is suddenly more valuable for spam-- they'll know there's a real human who's reading mail sent to it. If you really want to complain, you could try mailing abuse@ their ISP: it works, sometimes.

Death to Spam is a good read on the subject. You might also like to check out the alt.spam FAQ.

SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP. (a) NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally.....

...(c) TELEVISION OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- (1) NATIONAL OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- The Commission shall modify its rules for multiple ownership set forth in section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555)-- (A) by eliminating the restrictions on the number of television stations that a person or entity may directly or indirectly own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, nationwide...

I think this is a troll but I'm not sure... The call to action seems to be "Lets spend half a billion federal dollars developing slackware because it worked for FDR."

This isn't a completely obvious troll because many people still believe that FDR saved America from the great depression through The New Deal (though it's now generally agreed that only World War II really turned things around-- look it up if you don't believe me).

That said, the overall feels seems to appeal to emotions (Do the right thing, Be American, etc.) so I'll label it a troll. Respond accordingly...

-Ted

Last session there was a bill, the Artists' Contribution to American Heritage Act, that would have allowed the picture painting scenario you describe, see Sen. Leahy's letter. It seems likely that it would have applied to software but its not clear how it would be applied to Open Source software because it is unclear how to appraise Open Source software. See the thread on the Union for the Public Domain's mailing list.

In the discussion, according to RMS companies (not individuals) can already claim a credit for donations of proprietary software to FSF (which would presumably "free" it) or other such organization, but that he was not aware of any such situation where that had occured. It would surprise me if no companies would take advantage of this as companies like IBM are donating copyrights on code to FSF. I believe that patches to GCC must have copyright assigned to FSF.

The bill didn't pass, it will probably be reintroduced this session.

Of course, any discussion of taxes and free software would be incomplete w/o mentioning the Hacker Tax Credit.

Check out http://www.loc.gov/global/executive/fed.html for a list of executive branch agencies and their web sites. You'll see Amtrak (National Railroad Passenger Corporation) nestled in between the National Mediation Board and the National Science Foundation. Basically, as prez, I own Amtrak and I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to give the DEA information about passengers, I can, 'cause it's all mine. If you don't want your information being shared with the DEA, then you shouldn't be so po' that you need to ride the train.
-----------------------

SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP. (a) NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally.....

...(c) TELEVISION OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- (1) NATIONAL OWNERSHIP LIMITATIONS- The Commission shall modify its rules for multiple ownership set forth in section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555)-- (A) by eliminating the restrictions on the number of television stations that a person or entity may directly or indirectly own, operate, or control, or have a cognizable interest in, nationwide...

This topic is one that is already being seriously considered by librarians and historians.

The USA's Library of Congress Preservation Reformatting Division is digitizing many items for preservation, and you can be sure that they're concerned that the digital preservation will be at least as effective as the original (analog, paper, whatever) form.

One of the current projects of the Research Libraries Group is data preservation. The RLG is an international group formed originally by Columbia, Harvard, and Yale universities and The New York Public Library in 1975, with current members from academia, government archives, public and private sector historical organizations.

A google search on digital data preservation gives plenty more linkage to groups actively looking at the issues involved in digital storage.

Of course, there is still a huge volume of personal and corporate data that will no doubt degrade to dust. For that, we all need to take the approach of wiredog to keep our personal data accessible by refreshing the media as technology advances.

Naturally, since this is Slashdot, all of this has been already covered. This article was a particularly good treatment of the topic and was posted as a followup to an older Ask Slashdot.

Really, how different will it be if the future only has the preserved personal effects and communications of an insignificant fraction of the general population? Today, archeologists make a career out of extrapolating whole civilizations out of building foundations and shards of pottery.

So, with a little care, I'm confident that my own data will be happily accessible as long as I need it. After that, the future will take care of itself.

This topic is one that is already being seriously considered by librarians and historians.

The USA's Library of Congress Preservation Reformatting Division is digitizing many items for preservation, and you can be sure that they're concerned that the digital preservation will be at least as effective as the original (analog, paper, whatever) form.

One of the current projects of the Research Libraries Group is data preservation. The RLG is an international group formed originally by Columbia, Harvard, and Yale universities and The New York Public Library in 1975, with current members from academia, government archives, public and private sector historical organizations.

A google search on digital data preservation gives plenty more linkage to groups actively looking at the issues involved in digital storage.

Of course, there is still a huge volume of personal and corporate data that will no doubt degrade to dust. For that, we all need to take the approach of wiredog to keep our personal data accessible by refreshing the media as technology advances.

Naturally, since this is Slashdot, all of this has been already covered. This article was a particularly good treatment of the topic and was posted as a followup to an older Ask Slashdot.

Really, how different will it be if the future only has the preserved personal effects and communications of an insignificant fraction of the general population? Today, archeologists make a career out of extrapolating whole civilizations out of building foundations and shards of pottery.

So, with a little care, I'm confident that my own data will be happily accessible as long as I need it. After that, the future will take care of itself.

Statutory royalties are already being collected by the music industry. Every time someone purchases a CDR to fill with music downloaded from Napster, they pay a 3% royalty, which is put in a fund. 100% of this fund (minus some 12 cents paid to two individuals who have been fighting the system and demanding their royalties directly) is paid directly to an organization called Copyright Management Inc (CMI), which distributes the fund to copyright holders, songwriters, music publishers, and artists. Well, they distribute the funds to the various organizations that claim to represent those parties, such as ASCAP, BMI, etc. In the words of the copyright office:

The Settling Parties [which received 99.999% of the funds] receive all remaining royalty fees because they represent the interests of the remaining copyright owners entitled to receive a portion of these funds.

These "royalties", collected by law, are intended to compensate the music industry for all non-commercial copying of music. These royalties have been collected since 1992, and represent a substantial amount of money. These royalties are compounding by the year as more and more people purchase CDR burners, and blank media, and use them.

It turns out to be fairly difficult to find out exactly how much money has been collected in blank media royalties. here is the copyright office's website describing how the royalties were divided up. The acronym is DART, for "Digital Audio Recording Technology" If you look over the documents, you'll find that for every year that blank media statutory royalties have been collected, over 99.99% have gone to an organization called "Copyright Management Inc", which is a blanket organization that covers ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, HFA, SGA, and others. It's almost as if they don't really want the public to know how much money is being collected. No matter how hard you look, you'll never find actual dollar amounts -- only percentages. I was able to find out the actual dollar amounts though, from one of those two individuals who filed individual claims, and here they are:

Royalties collected on consumer digital audio recording devices and blank media:

1992 $118,228.42
1993 $520,162.84
1994 $521,999.64
1995 $473,592.20
1996 $397,152.52
1997 $969,178.06
1998 $1,978,457.93
1999 $3,551,030.86
2000 $5,285,246.32

Total: over 13 Million dollars so far.

The royalties collected prior to 1997 mostly represent sales of DAT recorders and tapes. The introduction of CD recorders and blank CDRs caused a large jump in the collected royalties, and surely the introduction of Napster is largely responsible for the enormous growth in royalties collected in 1999 and 2000.

In other words, people are buying enormous numbers of blank CDRs. Most of these CDRs are probably being filled with music. Much of that music probably comes from Napster. So Napster is directly fueling the growth of the DART fund, which, I will remind you, is, by law, paid to artists and songwriters as well as copyright holders. So next time someone says that Napster users don't pay for their music, you have the real answer. They are. Congress needs to be made aware of this 13 million dollars in royalties, and decide what rights are purchased by those "royalties." Either admit that Napster users are paying royalties when they burn their downloaded MP3s to CDRs, and allow Napster to continue, or establish a new statutory royalty system based on downloads, and scrap the royalty system based on blank media, because under the current system, the people pay royalties to the music industry on the one hand when they purchase their media, yet are told that they are not paying the music industry when they fill that media. The music industry is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, and no one seems to want to call them on it.

The DMCA was far less relevant to this matter than the rest of Title 17 -- the Copyright Act itself. The problem here was that this guy just didn't do what he should have done to protect his work. Unless the asset was highly valuable after the fact, he is quite correct: it makes little sense to pursue a copyright action for an unregistered work. The problem wasn't that the laws failed him -- he just didn't take advantage of the laws.

As an IP attorney and computer lawyer, we \beat up on big companies for individuals and small companies all the time. And, from time to time, vice-versa. We also defend the little guy against an abusive big guy on the same terms. True, a monied litigant has advantages throughout America's courts -- this is hardly an issue unique to the Copyright Act. But the copyright Act is actually unique in that it is, by design, set up to provide powerful relief to underdogs with statutory damages that can include an award of attorney fees.

The idea is to have a strong case, and to be able to take good advantage of the remedies available to you under law.

This author did not.

One of the key mistakes he made, and this was huge, was to fail to register his valuable code, not with the "Patent Office" as he suggested, but rather with the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress. It costs so little, and the massive differences it makes in a litigation scenario are huge.

Although its best to consult with a competent legal counselor the first time, most copyrights can be self-registered at nominal cost. Most of what you need to know can be found at: the Copyright Office web site.

Registering a work prior to infringement entitles you to statutory damages, possible statutory punitive remedies and a likely award of attorney fees in a suitable case. What a difference this can make for the defendant when factoring the consequences of an action. The hammer of an award of attorney fees and damages determined by a jury (not necessarily related to the actual damages at all), shakes the concience of a large corporation where it matters -- at the level of the bean counters. Suddenly, it makes no good sense to rattle sabres: it becomes a losing proposition.

Similarly, a wise defendant can use the Copyright law provisions to her advantage, particularly by exploiting the offer of judgment provisions of the local rules.

The laws cut both ways, and of course a monied litigant will often have advantages under EVERY LAW ON THE BOOKS. But it is no surprise that the Copyright Act offered this guy little relief -- he had a bad case.

The definitive resource for copyright is http://www.loc.gov/copyright/.
They have a FAQ and the forms.

The page for the registrar of copyrights is here.

I think the fee is about $30, which is pretty cheap for insurance if you are engaged in serious commercial activity that would inspire you to hire a lawyer later.

There are also criminal penalties. From the DOJ cybercrime web site:

• There are four essential elements to a charge of felony copyright infringement. In order to obtain a felony conviction under 17 U.S.C. 506(a) and 18 U.S.C. 2319, the government must demonstrate that:
• 1. A copyright exists, see infra Section III.B.1 at page 48;
• 2. It was infringed by the defendant by reproduction or distribution of the copyrighted work, see infra Section III.B.2 at page 50;
• 3. The defendant acted willfully, see infra Section III.B.3 at page 14; and
• 4. The defendant infringed at least 10 copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $2,500 within a 180-day period. See infra Section III.B.4 at page 58.

  See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (c)(1). The maximum punishment for this crime is 3 years imprisonment and $250,000. See infra Section III.D at page 71.

  Another element, if proven, enhances the maximum penalty: That the defendant acted "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." If it is proven, the statutory maximum prison sentence can rise to 5 years. See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (b)(1). See also infra Section III.B.5 at page 60 (discussing commercial purposes element). Moreover, a commercial motivation case will usually have better jury appeal than a case without commercial motivation. Indeed, if commercial motivation is not alleged, defendants may be more inclined to raise the affirmative defense of fair use, codified at 17 U.S.C. 107, since fair use defenses are more plausible when defendants do not profit financially by their acts of infringement. For a discussion of "fair use," see infra Section III.C.3 at page 71.

So talk to the local U.S. Attorney's Office.

Again, the facts get in the way of a perfect Liberal arguement.

The "study", to begin with, is not a study. It is a poll.

...New York, which is disproportionally Democratic. As such, the poll it is completely useless for the argument you are trying to make in regards to _all_ Republicans.

Specifically, it refers to the situation that occurred last year in the New York public art museum, where public funds were used to support art that insulted a segment of the New York population.

Specifically, it also asked about the general issue of censorship in various contexts, including books and film, as well as publically funded art exhibits.

You provided no further information about the bill Ashcroft supported, and as such, I can not speak for or against him.

Dude, this is /., not a freaking poli-sci doctoral disseration. But a few minutes with Google will show that in addition to backing the CDA, Ashcroft introduced and sponsored the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which in addition to the usual War on (Some) Drugs atrocities, would send you to jail for talking about how drugs are made. Satisfied?

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

Again, the facts get in the way of a perfect Liberal arguement.

The "study", to begin with, is not a study. It is a poll.

...New York, which is disproportionally Democratic. As such, the poll it is completely useless for the argument you are trying to make in regards to _all_ Republicans.

Specifically, it refers to the situation that occurred last year in the New York public art museum, where public funds were used to support art that insulted a segment of the New York population.

Specifically, it also asked about the general issue of censorship in various contexts, including books and film, as well as publically funded art exhibits.

You provided no further information about the bill Ashcroft supported, and as such, I can not speak for or against him.

Dude, this is /., not a freaking poli-sci doctoral disseration. But a few minutes with Google will show that in addition to backing the CDA, Ashcroft introduced and sponsored the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act, which in addition to the usual War on (Some) Drugs atrocities, would send you to jail for talking about how drugs are made. Satisfied?

Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/

The idea here is relatively simple: check out Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

To promote progress, writers must be given incentives to write. That not only means a way to make a living, but an incentive to continue creating new works. If, after a reasonable time, the profit stops coming from old work, that's a pretty powerful incentive to create something to restore the income!

BTW, you need not wait for 50 years after an author's death: it's up to 70 years now! Or, for corporate works, over 95 years from publication or 120 years from inception, whichever comes first. Oh, and there's no guarantee that you can obtain a legitimate copy at any point during the term of the copyright, either. No responsibility at all comes with that copy "right"...

How's that for being completely unreasonable?

The Library of Congress has a great FAQ on copyright issues. See Question 46 for length of copyright, for example.

Are you talking about H.R. 718, "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001", sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)?

According to CNN, it's passed Committee vote and will be sent to the House floor for consideration. A version needs to be introduced and passed in the Senate, the two reconciled, then sent to POTUS.
Here's the text, if anybody's interested. Actually, that's probably a temporary link which will break VERY soon, so you can instead use this link, which should hopefully re-exec the query, and then click 'Full Display'.

It's actually fairly interesting. There's explicit protection for service providers to take 'good faith' efforts to block UCE, which would appear to protect users of things like the real-time black-hole list for mail servers, and what not. And you can't go after them for innocent retransmission, either.

It's probably based on existing telemarketing law, with its references to pre-existing business relationships, opt-out (they need to provide a means for opting out of lists in their UCE, but they don't need you to opt in BEFORE they send the first UCE) and all.

Interestingly, it only refers to individuals. I'm not sure how it applies to UCE from corporations -- for instance, whether the entire company is liable as a whole or just the employee(s) who decided to spam, or whether this could in any way be applied to spam-friendly ISPs.

Are you talking about H.R. 718, "Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2001", sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM)?

According to CNN, it's passed Committee vote and will be sent to the House floor for consideration. A version needs to be introduced and passed in the Senate, the two reconciled, then sent to POTUS.
Here's the text, if anybody's interested. Actually, that's probably a temporary link which will break VERY soon, so you can instead use this link, which should hopefully re-exec the query, and then click 'Full Display'.

It's actually fairly interesting. There's explicit protection for service providers to take 'good faith' efforts to block UCE, which would appear to protect users of things like the real-time black-hole list for mail servers, and what not. And you can't go after them for innocent retransmission, either.

It's probably based on existing telemarketing law, with its references to pre-existing business relationships, opt-out (they need to provide a means for opting out of lists in their UCE, but they don't need you to opt in BEFORE they send the first UCE) and all.

Interestingly, it only refers to individuals. I'm not sure how it applies to UCE from corporations -- for instance, whether the entire company is liable as a whole or just the employee(s) who decided to spam, or whether this could in any way be applied to spam-friendly ISPs.

I think you may have this a little mixed up. Without a contract, the author of a "work for hire" retains ownership of the rights to that work. Unless the creater of a work is an employee of a company performing his or her duties of employement, a contract is normally required to deprive the creative party from their ownership over the creation. An example we often see in our lives is the professional portrait photographer, whose work we are not able to have copied without a release from the photographer-- even though it is a picture of ourselves. (Of course the photographer probably can't use the photo for much else than selling you copies either, unless you signed a model release form-- but that's a privacy issue, not a copyright issue). For more information see, US Copyright Office FAQ especially #35. There is a link in the FAQ to a PDF called "Circular 9" which goes in depth about work for hire.

How quick the slashdot moderators are to mark "Informative" a misinformational post. If you simply read the US Copyright law definition of "work made for hire", you'll see that non-employee work only falls into this category "if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire."

You are ignoring Section 1008, which states

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.

That sounds to me like it's not illegal to make a digital copy of a CD for your own personal use.

Okay folks, if you're going to spout off about Fair Use at least read the clause. It's not very long, and it's not what you think it is:

107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

There it is. If you're teaching, editorializing, reporting, or researching the work you can reproduce limited parts. No, you don't get to make all the copies you want regardless of the media used. Technically, if you want a copy for the house and one for the car then you are supposed to buy two. If you want a CD for the house and a tape for the car then you are supposed to buy one of each. Maybe it sucks, but that's the way they wrote the law.

When I got a set of copyright registration papers several years ago there was also mention that, generally, if the owner does not offer the work in a particular medium then it wasn't considered infringement to make a copy for your own use in that medium. So if you buy a CD and the owner doesn't offer tape, mp3, vinyl, etc. then you are probably OK to make yourself a copy on one of those. DMCA may have changed that view though.

You can read the whole thing at http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/.

The only "problem" is that the Internet is simply too large for one engine to index. People go to Google expecting to search every web document that's online, a labor comparable to going to your local library and expecting their database to tell you about every book in existence on a particular topic or by a particular author. Even the Library of Congress isn't that comprehensive.

I disagree with the article's claim that "much of the most interesting and valuable content [on the Web] remains hard to find." I think that the most interesting and valuable content is easy to find, provided that you start looking in the right place. Which means that if I want information on the latest US school shootings, I don't go to Yahoo or Google and search for "school shootings", I go to those sites and search for major news sources (BBC, CNN, Reuters, etc.) and use their up-to-the-minute search engines.

The role of search engines isn't "shrinking" by a long shot; it's just becoming less comprehensive. Searching on the Web is now a two-step process instead of a one-step process, and you have to apply a little more intelligence than you could back in 1995. If high school students researching their latest humanities paper have a problem with that, well, they should ask us twentysomethings what it was like to have to use card catalogs and microfiche for our own high school projects.

Oops! A typo in the Copyright Law URL. It's supposed to be http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/

Under the same Act, listening to a radio in a public place doesn't violate any laws. Establishments do have to pay royalties if they are charging customers to listen, are transmitting beyond the establishment, or are over 2000 square feet (3750 for resaurants/bars) *and* have more than six speakers. "Mom and Pop" are not going to be charged royalties for listening to the radio.

See Chapter 1, Section 110 of the Copyright Law.

There are several bills working their way through Congress. And there's one that addresses spam in SMS messages. You can read about it here. If you want to see a list of several bills pending in Congress, CAUCE has a page describing them.

The text of this bill is available by searching http://thomas.loc.gov for "spam".

(thomas.loc.gov is the first site that I've encountered that not only uses temporary URLs for search results and uses POST forms for searching, but also won't accept the form if I tell my browser to GET it instead.)