Slashdot Mirror

• 2000-06-27 20:19:19 UCITA-like e-signature bill will be law soon! (articles,usa) (rejected)

Alright then, where would be get this infinite amount of data from???

• All the old National Geographics that everybody seems to have collected for some strange reason?
• Maybe the Congressional Record or Internal Revenue Code? About time we got some good use out of those... Yeah, I know that they're not quite infinite yet, but just wait 'til next year!
• Perhaps the phone numbers of all the girls who won't go out with me?
• We could always store the coordinates of all the points on the perimiter of the Mandelbrot set.
• Of course, we could just load it up with the digits of pi or e, but that's kind of boring.
• The authoritative compliation of all the troll postings on Slashdot?
• We could always use the lyrics to "Infinite Bottles of Beer on the Wall", but after the first few hundred thousand bottles we'd probably be slurring too badly for anybody to understand it.

Alright then, where would be get this infinite amount of data from???

• All the old National Geographics that everybody seems to have collected for some strange reason?
• Maybe the Congressional Record or Internal Revenue Code? About time we got some good use out of those... Yeah, I know that they're not quite infinite yet, but just wait 'til next year!
• Perhaps the phone numbers of all the girls who won't go out with me?
• We could always store the coordinates of all the points on the perimiter of the Mandelbrot set.
• Of course, we could just load it up with the digits of pi or e, but that's kind of boring.
• The authoritative compliation of all the troll postings on Slashdot?
• We could always use the lyrics to "Infinite Bottles of Beer on the Wall", but after the first few hundred thousand bottles we'd probably be slurring too badly for anybody to understand it.

All humor aside, there are things you might be able to do depending on how much money you DO want to spend. IANAL, so realize this isn't necessarily 100% accurate.

I'm also assuming that the people you are complaining about are in the US, as I really can't get through due to the ./ effect.

If you both were in the US, then this would be really simple. You send them a certified letter asking them to cease and desist. If they don't stop, you go down to your local federal court and file a copyright suit against them. Usually they settle at this point and everything is solved. Usually you can get them to pay the court costs at the very least.

Internationally, this gets a little bit more hairy. According to the Copyright Office's Circular 38a, your country has copyright relations with ours. From my understanding of this, this basically means is if you have a valid copyright in your country, it will be honored in the US.

In addition, according to the Copyright Office's FAQ Question 33 you can register the copyright ALSO in the US. This isn't strictly necessary, but will probably add legitimacy to your claim.

The tricky part is how to get the claim filed. I'm assuming you can have someone in the US do this for you, and have them act on your behalf in this matter. Exactly how you do this and if it can be just anybody you know in the US or if it has to be an Attorney, I don't know. I do know that the claim is relatively cheap to file if you do it yourself.

In any case, good luck! I really hate to see people steal other people's work and take credit for it themselves. It seems to be going around right now, though. I'm aware of at least one person who has had their entire site ripped off and used on a commercial site.

One last thing, one good resource would be the US Copyright office at http://www.loc.gov/copyright. They have lots of copyright info. Start with the FAQ.

All humor aside, there are things you might be able to do depending on how much money you DO want to spend. IANAL, so realize this isn't necessarily 100% accurate.

I'm also assuming that the people you are complaining about are in the US, as I really can't get through due to the ./ effect.

If you both were in the US, then this would be really simple. You send them a certified letter asking them to cease and desist. If they don't stop, you go down to your local federal court and file a copyright suit against them. Usually they settle at this point and everything is solved. Usually you can get them to pay the court costs at the very least.

Internationally, this gets a little bit more hairy. According to the Copyright Office's Circular 38a, your country has copyright relations with ours. From my understanding of this, this basically means is if you have a valid copyright in your country, it will be honored in the US.

In addition, according to the Copyright Office's FAQ Question 33 you can register the copyright ALSO in the US. This isn't strictly necessary, but will probably add legitimacy to your claim.

The tricky part is how to get the claim filed. I'm assuming you can have someone in the US do this for you, and have them act on your behalf in this matter. Exactly how you do this and if it can be just anybody you know in the US or if it has to be an Attorney, I don't know. I do know that the claim is relatively cheap to file if you do it yourself.

In any case, good luck! I really hate to see people steal other people's work and take credit for it themselves. It seems to be going around right now, though. I'm aware of at least one person who has had their entire site ripped off and used on a commercial site.

One last thing, one good resource would be the US Copyright office at http://www.loc.gov/copyright. They have lots of copyright info. Start with the FAQ.

All humor aside, there are things you might be able to do depending on how much money you DO want to spend. IANAL, so realize this isn't necessarily 100% accurate.

I'm also assuming that the people you are complaining about are in the US, as I really can't get through due to the ./ effect.

If you both were in the US, then this would be really simple. You send them a certified letter asking them to cease and desist. If they don't stop, you go down to your local federal court and file a copyright suit against them. Usually they settle at this point and everything is solved. Usually you can get them to pay the court costs at the very least.

Internationally, this gets a little bit more hairy. According to the Copyright Office's Circular 38a, your country has copyright relations with ours. From my understanding of this, this basically means is if you have a valid copyright in your country, it will be honored in the US.

In addition, according to the Copyright Office's FAQ Question 33 you can register the copyright ALSO in the US. This isn't strictly necessary, but will probably add legitimacy to your claim.

The tricky part is how to get the claim filed. I'm assuming you can have someone in the US do this for you, and have them act on your behalf in this matter. Exactly how you do this and if it can be just anybody you know in the US or if it has to be an Attorney, I don't know. I do know that the claim is relatively cheap to file if you do it yourself.

In any case, good luck! I really hate to see people steal other people's work and take credit for it themselves. It seems to be going around right now, though. I'm aware of at least one person who has had their entire site ripped off and used on a commercial site.

One last thing, one good resource would be the US Copyright office at http://www.loc.gov/copyright. They have lots of copyright info. Start with the FAQ.

The best way to prevent rampant porn viewing in the library (which I believe is a bit disgraceful) is to have really big monitors set really high facing the door. Let the mores of the community decide what is acceptable behavior or isn't. Who knows, maybe there is a whole community out there that really enjoys downonthefarm.com.

This is not a case of the libraries wanted to protect themselves from the liability of providing minors with unrestricted access to the internet. After all, librarians are typically the strongest supporters of the first amendment and the right to read. Ever go into a library during banned books week? In fact, they encourage you to read any books that have been challenged or censored.

Banned Books Week:
http://www.ala.org/bbooks/

Hey, banned books week begins one week from now!

This issue has nothing to do with filtering out access to DeCSS. Don't be rediculous. But as you pointed out, as it stands (pre-appeal and overturn of the DMCA), software (even if is considered speech) that violates DMCA is not protected by the first amendment.

However,
THIS seems to be ok to put in libraries. Funny how that works.

`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

DeCSS wasn't primarily used for copying anything, the reason it was illegal is because it circumvented the technological measures places on the DVD's by the DVD-CCA. I still dont understand where in the DMCA it says this: "Under the DMCA any player which does NOT use the watermark is a device which is 'bypassing digital copy protection means' and is thus ILLEGAL." I can maybe understand that if someone came out with a player that supports SDMI music, but doesn't do any checks for it, then I'd you are correct in your statement, but as you state it, you say that ANY player which does not use the watermark will be illegal. What if i buy a device that doesn't support any music that has watermarks? Take a portable cd player that supports MP3's, why would it have to support watermarks? If you could, please quote the DMCA where it does say this.

Here is the url for the complete text of the DMCA, i haven't read the whole DMCA, its not the most interesting reading there is, but ill look for anything like that too. In any case, listening to music doesn't sound like anything anyone will be doing in the future if all this continues.

Digital Millenium Copyright Act

Media being the press? Then the government has no business in there anyway. Here, let me quote from the US Constitution: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html
"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

However, this looks more like the FCC ordering AOL to open up their SERVERS, not their protocol. In which case it still is none of the government's business, even if it is a merger case.

Visit DC2600

At the moment, nothing can beat the sheer interactivity and functionality of pieces of paper bound in a cover. Whilst there is growth in the amount of online literature, the current state of play of the technology we use in browsing the net makes it a lot more convenient just to pick up a book.

Who do you think gets more "hits": Project Gutenberg or the Library of Congress? It's not the former I'm guessing...

Whilst we are hearing a lot about electronic books recently, the failure of companies to decide on a standard, and the failure of the technology to be as robust or as comfortable as books means that for the moment, "open publishing" will remain firmly a minority phenomenon.

In the House of Representatives, the only "Nay" vote to the Anti-Spam bill was cast by Ron Paul (Republican, 14th District of Texas). I wonder what thorn is up his butt? I mean, Texas is home to a majority of the members of Citizens Against Ugly Street Spam... hmm... methinks Mr. Paul must be working as a spammer at night or something ;-)

Sometimes you actually have to move out of your seat to find something out...

And sometimes you don't.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Several people have complained that their comments didn't get posted with the others. It is likely that an error was made during submission. Your comments had to be in one of a few formats, with full name and contact info, and then sent to TWO email addresses. If you did it right, you would have gotten a receipt by email.

BTW, if you sent it to "1201@loc.gov", that address is no longer valid.

Full instructions were at this address.

I could've sworn that I submitted comments.

There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:

1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999

I could've sworn that I submitted comments.

There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:

1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999

I could've sworn that I submitted comments.

There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:

1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999

I could've sworn that I submitted comments.

There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:

1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999

I could've sworn that I submitted comments.

There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:

1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999

I could've sworn that I submitted comments.

There seems to be some confusion by several people saying "hey, where's my comment". There were several different opportunities to submit comments:

1201(a) Rule Making Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Reply Comments
1201(a) Rule Making Post-Hearing Comments
Section 109 & 117 Comments
Section 109 & 117 Reply Comments
Encryption Research Comments from July 1999

• 235 Comments
• 129 Reply Comments
• 28 Post-Hearing Comments
• 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments

• 235 Comments
• 129 Reply Comments
• 28 Post-Hearing Comments
• 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments

• 235 Comments
• 129 Reply Comments
• 28 Post-Hearing Comments
• 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments

• 235 Comments
• 129 Reply Comments
• 28 Post-Hearing Comments
• 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments

• 235 Comments
• 129 Reply Comments
• 28 Post-Hearing Comments
• 16 Post-Hearing Reply Comments

I think another point (and it is hard to read this legalese!) they make is that the copyright law and in particular the DMCA was not supposed to give copyright holders a stranglehold on access to copyrighted works so long as the "authorized user" had a legitimately acquired DVD disc. In other words, I don't think the MPAA can control the access to DVD. This makes it seem like their practice of giving a license to companies to make "authorized players" is illegal because they should be able to make players for legimate copies of DVD without a license.

I was confused about this also. There are several groups of comments. As many of the issues were brought up before the hearing, many thought that additional comment would be redundant. I found mine by looking over the links on this page. (Check out the lower left corner)

Out of all the Slashdot, kuro5hin, and advogate readers, fewer than ten bothered to submit comments on the most important act of Congress in our generation?

OK, all you script kiddies (and I know you're out there), drop that copy of Back Orifice and do something useful for a change. Here's the hitlist, courtesy of the most self-serving piece of arrogant crap I've seen for a long time:

American Film Marketing Association
Association of American Publishers
Business Software Alliance
Interactive Digital Software Association
Motion Picture Association of America
National Music Publishers' Association
Recording Industry Association of America

To paraphrase RMS, "Go get 'em, trolls!"

Check out Walter Charles Becktel's little gem of a response:

http://www.loc .gov/copyright/reports/studies/dmca/reply/Reply004 .pdf

He's definitely the token freak in the mix.

I wonder how much the MPAA paid to make sure his letter got the spotlight. Or even more to the point... how much they paid whoever ghost wrote it on their behalf.

The part about "Little Green Gremlins" near the end is an especially nice touch. (Perhaps a reference to our beloved Slashdot trolls?)

Well, I enjoyed having free access to CDs and Vids at my public library while it lasted.

IANAL either, but I know a little about copyright. The data format has absolutely zero to do with the cases (either of them). Damages come in two flavors: actual and statutory (potentially plus attorneys fess, for either). Actual damages are what the copyright holder lost plus what the copyright infringer gained, while statutory damages are set by the court within a sort of fixed range per work infringed. The range moves up when a court finds that an infringement is "willful" and moves down when the court finds the infringement is "innocent". The range for statutory damages is set in 17 USC 504, paragraph c, with the "normal" range at $750 to $30,000, with the ceiling for "willful" set at $150,000 and the floor for "innocent" at $200, all per work infringed.

In the MP3.com case, Universal did not request actual damages, but elected statutory (it's either/or and the copyright owner must choose). The judge had already found "willful" infringement but apparently didn't see the need to set the punishment outside the normal range, setting it at $25,000 per CD.

For Napster, the total dollar amount of the MP3.com award isn't relevant, the benchmark is the "per work" part of the award. In other words, the precendent for Napster is $25,000 per CD. However, Napster didn't do anything to attempt to limit usage of the service and the little evidence of intent I've seen suggests that Napster intended to create an unregulated sharing service. If the appeals courts agree that they're liable, I'd expect a higher per CD damage award, on more CDs. However, I think Napster has a chance to win an "ISP" defense based on on appeal and there's also a fairly good chance of winning an appeal on the issue of "contributory infringement" - I think Judge Patel is stretching the theory of contributory infringement to get a particular result and I'm not sure appeals courts will agree that it stretches that far. There are also other legal "outs" for Napster, this brief (PDF) lists several potential good ones.

For MP3.com, the design of their service creates a very different case and any chance of winning on appeal will depend on getting court to look at the end result of the service (which is itself lawful), and not the implementation details.

IANAL either, but I know a little about copyright. The data format has absolutely zero to do with the cases (either of them). Damages come in two flavors: actual and statutory (potentially plus attorneys fess, for either). Actual damages are what the copyright holder lost plus what the copyright infringer gained, while statutory damages are set by the court within a sort of fixed range per work infringed. The range moves up when a court finds that an infringement is "willful" and moves down when the court finds the infringement is "innocent". The range for statutory damages is set in 17 USC 504, paragraph c, with the "normal" range at $750 to $30,000, with the ceiling for "willful" set at $150,000 and the floor for "innocent" at $200, all per work infringed.

In the MP3.com case, Universal did not request actual damages, but elected statutory (it's either/or and the copyright owner must choose). The judge had already found "willful" infringement but apparently didn't see the need to set the punishment outside the normal range, setting it at $25,000 per CD.

For Napster, the total dollar amount of the MP3.com award isn't relevant, the benchmark is the "per work" part of the award. In other words, the precendent for Napster is $25,000 per CD. However, Napster didn't do anything to attempt to limit usage of the service and the little evidence of intent I've seen suggests that Napster intended to create an unregulated sharing service. If the appeals courts agree that they're liable, I'd expect a higher per CD damage award, on more CDs. However, I think Napster has a chance to win an "ISP" defense based on on appeal and there's also a fairly good chance of winning an appeal on the issue of "contributory infringement" - I think Judge Patel is stretching the theory of contributory infringement to get a particular result and I'm not sure appeals courts will agree that it stretches that far. There are also other legal "outs" for Napster, this brief (PDF) lists several potential good ones.

For MP3.com, the design of their service creates a very different case and any chance of winning on appeal will depend on getting court to look at the end result of the service (which is itself lawful), and not the implementation details.

And why should they stop you? Under section 109(a) of the US Copyright code, the owner of a particular lawfully obtained copy is allowed to sell, give away, or loan for free their copy without the copyright holder's permission. Section 109(b)(1)(A) takes away the right to rent or lease your copy of a sound recording or computer program, but not a book (I assume this is a DMCA addition). IANAL, but I'd say that Microsoft's copy protection prohibits you from exercising the rights granted under 109(a).

And lets not kid ourselves, Microsoft is not the bad guy here. They are just doing what the publishing industry wants. All of the competing commercial e-book standards have heavy copy protection. It has been a thorn in the side of the industry for years that I can buy a book and then let my wife read it without paying for it a second time. What they (and the music and movie industry) really want is "pay-per-view". Until all PCs/PDAs/etc contain fingerprint or retinal readers, the best the industry can do is to lock the content to the device.

First off, it seems odd to have a separate copyright for every single CueCat they manufactured.

Also, it seems odd to copyright something so trivial and small. See the copyright office's circular "Copyright Basics : What is not protected by Copyright?". It mentions "Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents" aren't copyrightable. Short strings of gobledygook are pretty close to "short phrases" or maybe a few other ones.
--

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/, of the Library of Congress, has much information about registering your copyrighted items and how to generate backup means of proving your copyright should the need present itself.

First, the site has copied a number of gifs from linux.com, such as endcap.gif and stripes.gif. If these images aren't "freeware", but were created for linux.com, then the copying and ditributing of those images is a copyright violation.

More generally, layout design (or blank forms) are not copyrightable. The U.S. copyright office's circular 32 (PDF) (on forms) says:
"Copyright does not extend to names, titles, and short phrases or clauses such as column headings or simple checklists. The format, arrangement, or typography of a work is not protected."

However, a "trade dress" lawsuit would at least make it into court - I don't have a clue what the outcome might be because a similar web-related case hasn't happened yet, but it's only a matter of time. In "trade dress", courts have ruled that a commercial "look" that consumers associate with a source of goods or services can be protected, that another business cannot use that "look" when it can create confusion in the minds of consumers. The example case of trade dress infringment is Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (91-971), 505 U.S. 763 (1992). wherein the Supreme Court stated:
"trade dress was protected if it either was inherently distinctive--i. e., was not merely descriptive--or had acquired a secondary meaning--i. e., had come through use to be uniquely associated with a specific source".
Personally, I'd say the linux.com look was inherently distinctive. Whether the copying leads to confusion is another, critical, question...

Finally, this site appears to be a commercial site (http://www.myhobbes.com/ forwards to it), but is being hosted on the Texas A&M network (home is http://hobbes.resnet.tamu.edu/). I'm suspecting that somebody in authority in the University would be annoyed at this relationship.

Just a few changes quick changes could change the look enough to avoid the problem totally, but a little work is apparently a lot to ask of some people.

From the horse's mouth: The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work.

The operative word there is created.

Writing down someone else's findings is reproduction, not creation.

If you mail yourself copyrighted material (music recording, words on paper, or whatever), you're proving when it was created, providing you don't open the envelope. The postmark shows the date you mailed it, and since you couldn't mail it before you created it, you must have created it before the date on the postmark. That way, if you have to go to court to defend your copyright, you have a document from the Federal Government that shows when you authored the work, presumably before somebody ripped you off.

Sounds sketchy, but it's cheaper than a lawyer.

DMCA does make exception for things which have a legitimate purpose.

I am not a lawyer, but I've been known to play one on Slashdot, and it looks to me like there are two separate things here: the act of circumventingan access-control mechanism and the distribution of tools with which to do so. The DMCA does make exceptions for legitimate purposes to the prohibition against circumventing, but not to the one against distributing tools for circumvention:

About circumvention, it says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" (1201(a)(1)(A)), and later "The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title" (1201(a)(1)(B)).

Then about distributing, it says "No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." (1201(a)(2)). Note that those disclaimers about other significant purposes sound nice, but don't really help much: A DVD player based on DeCSS (like LiViD) should be legitimate, since it is has nothing to do with infringing copyrights, but it would still be out because it it all about circumventing access controls.

It kind of makes sense (albeit in a Salem-witch-trial sort of way: "If you do drown, you must not be a witch. Congratulations, you're acquitted!"), since in the latter case, the person distributing the tools is not doing any actual circumventing, legitimate or otherwise, so there's nothing to which to make the exception apply. The crime is making the tools available to others, presumably because you have no control over whether or not they use it legitimately.

The catch, of course, is that the tools are necessary in order to perform those legitimate circumventions. The only ways one can do it are to develop the tools oneself or to acquire them from someone else. Breaking CSS is beyond the abilities of nearly everyone, which only leaves getting DeCSS from someone else -- making it illegal for people to distribute it makes those legitimate uses impossible for all but the extremely few people who can do it themselves. The effect is still to eliminate fair use, though indirectly, by making it impossible rather than illegal.

This seems to be where the DMCA's constitutionality needs to be attacked. CSS and, really, all copy-protection (let alone access-control) mechanisms are really attacks by the publishers against people's fair use rights. They can't exactly be called "unconstitutional", because they're not laws -- they're not even done by the government -- but they are dirty tricks. Until now, at least, it was an arguably fair game between the publishers and the community: their best efforts to make strong protection mchanisms against our best efforts to circumvent them. Now, however, DMCA allows them to cheat in the game by running whining to the government whenever we succeed. It "effectively" gives force of law to whatever restrictions the publishers want to put on the use of their works.


David Gould

Sorry, but wrong. "Information" is not copyrightable. In U.S. law , for things to be copyrightable, they must be "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". In other words, copyright is only available to creative expression, but not to facts or non-creative compilations of facts, although copyright is available to creative compilations of facts.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has explicitly and definitely ruled that "white pages" phone directories (an alphabetical list of phone subscribers) in FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) are inherently not copyrightable, saying "[The copyright law] does not afford protection from copying to a collection of facts that are selected, coordinated, and arranged in a way that utterly lacks originality."

And more to the point, the packet stream from the emulator is not "fixed in any tangible medium of expression" and is therefore not copyrightable in itself. An analogy to make this point clearer: let's say a group of comics has developed a brilliant comedy sketch, it gets the audience rolling in the aisles and people flock to see it performed live. The comics never write the sketch down, and never have a performance recorded. Then another group of comics sneak into some shows, memorize the sketch, and then start performing it for profit. Under the U.S. law, there is no copyright violation here, at least until the first group of comics record the sketch (although there are probably other laws against this). Going back to packets, a stream that reproduces an already copyrighted work is copyrightable and reproducing it would be an infringement, but a stream that implements a communication protocol (e.g. a POP3 session, exluding the mail bodies) is not copyrightable.

The packets are, at least, a derivative work, copyrightable by corporation X.

I don't belive the packets meet the definition of derivative work, which is: 'A "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".' "Based upon" is not the same as "produced by", I believe that the definition clearly implies that to be a derivative work, the original work must be recognizable in the derivative work.

In fact, that whole chapter is an interesting read, I highly recommend it.

Yes.

Probably not. (The problem with a lot of recent laws, including the DMCA, is that nobody knows for sure until the courts decide things a time or three. A rather "chilling" system if you ask me.) Anyway, the relevant line of the DMCA (from the relevant portion is No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. Under standard legal theory of interpreting legislation, every word is supposed to be significant, and I would guess that "effectively" might be interpreted in such a way that rot13, etc. would be interpreted out of the picture. IANAL, just a guess...

http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/ci rc61.pdf

Public libraries, unfortunately, are too often dependent on fiercely proprietary-minded vendors for their daily operations.

Incidentally, the "go get MySQL, you dumbass" posters are missing an important point: libraries use the MARC data standard for catalog records, and SQL doesn't cope well with the kind of tricks MARC can do.

It wouldn't be easy. Real book cataloging doesn't fit very well into the vcard format (or most formats at all). Take a look at the MARC format at LOC for the format that real libraries use to interchange cataloging info.

If you build an app that uses that, and can use Z39.50, it can automatically seed your entries from detailed catalogs already available from your local library.

Senate Vote 99-1-0, Gregg (NH), No Vote.

House Legislative Action

House Legislative Action

Bzzt. Thanks for playing, please try again:
A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. U.S. Copyright law, 17 USC 204
"by operation of law" covers inheritance, seizure of assets for bankruptcy, etc...

Key excerpts:

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright....Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created [and fixed in "tangible form"]

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial.

[Key to this particular topic:] In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author.

There is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world....However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions

Copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection

We need the same for our laws.

We did... for a very brief period, we had the "Line Item Veto", which allowed the president to strike portions of laws, thus preventing congress from passing a bill that contained the meat of a law, while tacking on unrelated "pork barrel" projects to it that the president may not agree with.

Unfortunatley, when President Clinton used it, a lawsuit was filed by three senators claming that their constitutional authority had been usurped. The case went to the Supreme Court, and the plaintiffs complaint was upheld, and line item veto was declared unconstitutional.

So, it looks like the only way to get the Line Item Veto would be to have a constitutional amendment... and that's not very likeley right now. The last Line Item Veto amendment introduced to the house has been buried in the Judiciary subcomitee since 2/99.

The article says: According to copyright law, the creators of intellectual property such as software, books, and music have full ownership of the property. This is wrong (at least as to U.S. law). The creators of a work have a large number of substantial rights, the most absolute of which is when or whether to publish the work. As an incentive to publish ("make public") the work, the government agrees to provide certain limited monopoly rights on the work for a limited time, and back those rights with the power of the state. However, those rights are limited in a number of ways.

• Copyright expires - the U.S. Constitution explicitly mandates that copyright last for a "limited time", which Congress has chosen to currently set very, very long.
• Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit "fair use" by anyone else without permisiion of the creator.
• Copyright rights of the creator do not prohibit certain types of copying by libraries and public archives. This limitation is very relevant to the discussion of abandonware. More below.
• The "first sale" doctrine and section 109 of the law prevent creators from restricting re-selling of a work, or (for most works, with some important restrictions) the lending or renting of the work. (Programs and sound recordings can't be rented commercially.)
• Creators may not restrict or prohibit certain non-profit/educational performances or displays (e.g. a girlscout camp can sing copyrighted songs without paying a royalty).
• There are some incredibly arcane rules that I don't begin to understand allow some re-transmissions of (lawfully) transmitted works.
• Composers MUST license their published songs and other music (excluding operas and other "dramatic" musical works) under terms of a compulsory license for making "phonorecords" (sound recordings - tapes, records, CDs, etc.). The rate of payment is fixed by an arbitrator.
• Publishers of "phonorecords" must license them for use in commercial jukeboxes, but have the option of trying to negotiate a deal that suits them better than the deal set by the arbitrator.
• Owners of a copy of a computer program may make whatever copies of a program are essential to its use, or may make (an unspecified number of) backup copies. Section 117
• The copyright on a building or other architectural work doesn't prohibit pictures or other images of the work (as long as it's constructed and in public view).
• Copyright owners can't prohibit taping for the blind, under certain circumstances.
• If the rights or a right to a work have been transfered (sold, licensed, or otherwise) an author or his statutory heirs may terminate (undo) the transfer unilaterally without compensation, within a window of 35 to 40 years after after the transfer. An author may waive this right by contract but cannot do so on behalf of his statutory heirs.

But back to "abandonware". Section 108 of the copyright law says that, among other things, libraries and other publicaly available archives may (under section e of the law) make a complete copy of a work that they have determined is otherwise unavailable at a fair price and give it to a library user, provided a) they do not do so for commercial advantage and b) they display a particular notice as specified by the Copyright Office in 37 CFR 201.14 (PDF, scroll down to about page 20). The full text of the section e) reads:

(e) The rights of reproduction and distribution under this section apply to the entire work, or to a substantial part of it, made from the collection of a library or archives where the user makes his or her request or from that of another library or archives, if the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price, if-

(1) the copy or phonorecord becomes the property of the user, and the library or archives has had no notice that the copy or phonorecord would be used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research; and

(2) the library or archives displays prominently, at the place where orders are accepted, and includes on its order form, a warning of copyright in accordance with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

Important: other parts of the section and of the law influence the legal interpretation of the above (so consult a lawyer), but the important point is, "abandonware" sites CAN be legal!