Slashdot Mirror

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

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!

I urge every one of you to check out:

Joint Study Required by Section 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

And especially Przemek Klosowski's submission.

Good luck to 2600 and the EFF!

Geist

You're wrong (but not totally). Under the law 17 USC 10, section 1003, the manufacturer of "digital audio recording medium" must pay a royalty, defined in section 1004 as "3 percent of the transfer price", the manufacturer's wholesale price. Section 1001 defines "digital audio recording medium" as "any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device". It specifically exempts media that is primarily used as computer media, and a computer and/or CD burner fail to meet the definition of a "digital audio recording device" (unless they're specially marketed as such).

Last I looked recordable CDs still didn't have to pay royalties, and 3% of 40 cents doesn't have an impact even if that's changed...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-b in/query/z?c106:H.R.3778.IH:

As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.

Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to

Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to

Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")

I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed

As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.

Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to

Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to

Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")

I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed

As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.

Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to

Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to

Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")

I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed

As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.

Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to

Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to

Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")

I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed

As usual, Slashdot comments are heavy on hyperbole, light on fact. To help swing the balance towards rationality, here are some links to the actual bill that (I think) Katz is referring to.

Amendment 3610 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator McCain
Vote 149 - amendment agreed to

Amendment 3635 to H.R. 4577 as proposed by Senator Santorum
Vote 150 - amendment agreed to

Some discussion in the Senate about the two amendments (search for "Internet")

I think this is the final version:
H.R. 4577, TITLE VI--CHILDREN'S INTERNET PROTECTION
Full text of H.R. 4577--FY 2001 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill
Vote 273 in the House - passed
Vote 171 in the Senate - passed

here's the link to what's going on with the House Report.

it appears that on "7/25/2000: Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.

this page does list the co-sponsors.

hope it helps.

It's the A udio Home Recording Act of 1992.

I think the poster is right on some points (e.g., the RIAA has been collecting royalties on digital media since this became law), but misses some others. The appeals court ruling in the Napster case isn't a ruling of law, but just a stay of the injunction. We'll see how that plays out (I wouldn't put money on Napster). And as I understand it, computers and computer-based media are exempt from the Audio Home Recording Act, so no royalties are paid on computer CD-Rs, for example (that's why audio CD-Rs cost more, and computer CD-Rs don't work in an audio CD recorder, AFAIK). So computer-based digital recording probably isn't protected by the fair use clause of the Audio Home Recording Act, either. And I don't think that fair use clause includes redistribution of music, only recording for personal use.

NB: I am certainly not a lawyer.

These laws were enacted so that authors and artists would have an incentive to produce new works and to encourage the free and rapid circulation of ideas and opinions.

Would ideas and opinions not circulate faster - or at least, no slower - if copyright was nonexistant?

"It is a principle of American law that an author of a work may reap the fruits of his or her intellectual creativity for a limited period of time.", quoted from http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/cir c1a.html seems to be a more accurate description of what a copyrights purpose is. (Not that earning major bucks isn't an incentive to produce new works...)

Adam

The interceptors are giving themselves progressively greater powers to ensure that encrypted mail can either be decrypted by them or used as incriminating evidence in its own right by being encrypted in the first place.

Reading Jamie's link, I can't help ROFLMAO. Only in Washington would a man be able to introduce a bill with the designation "S.97" that goes by the Short Title of "Children's Internet Protection Act".*

I trust McCain et. al in exactly the same way I trust a hungry wild dog: I won't shoot him as long as he's keeping the rats away, but when he starts offering to babysit I get uncomfortable. There are some things I just don't need his help with.

Although I like the idea of being able to sue people who misuse my personal information, I wouldn't be surprised if the title of this bill is misleading. McCain is good enough to get away with fooling most of the people most of the time. For instance, the much publicized Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which the general populace accepted as panacea, does absolutely nothing to reform campaign finance except allow larger PAC contributions and allow employees to opt out of labor union contributions they don't agree with. And does anyone -really- believe children are protected by censorship?

Calling this bill a Privacy Bill is falling into the exact same trap. It will not create any true standards of privacy. Instead, it will create the illusion of privacy, where non-US web sites can still use your information however they want and US web sites need only say "We sell your info to the highest bidder(s)" in blinking size 3 Tacoma font at the bottom of the page. Beneath the TrustE logo.

Rev Neh

*Yes, I know the real "long" titleof S.97.

Reading Jamie's link, I can't help ROFLMAO. Only in Washington would a man be able to introduce a bill with the designation "S.97" that goes by the Short Title of "Children's Internet Protection Act".*

I trust McCain et. al in exactly the same way I trust a hungry wild dog: I won't shoot him as long as he's keeping the rats away, but when he starts offering to babysit I get uncomfortable. There are some things I just don't need his help with.

Although I like the idea of being able to sue people who misuse my personal information, I wouldn't be surprised if the title of this bill is misleading. McCain is good enough to get away with fooling most of the people most of the time. For instance, the much publicized Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which the general populace accepted as panacea, does absolutely nothing to reform campaign finance except allow larger PAC contributions and allow employees to opt out of labor union contributions they don't agree with. And does anyone -really- believe children are protected by censorship?

Calling this bill a Privacy Bill is falling into the exact same trap. It will not create any true standards of privacy. Instead, it will create the illusion of privacy, where non-US web sites can still use your information however they want and US web sites need only say "We sell your info to the highest bidder(s)" in blinking size 3 Tacoma font at the bottom of the page. Beneath the TrustE logo.

Rev Neh

*Yes, I know the real "long" titleof S.97.

No "emergency" is necessary for the president to be the commander-in-chief. Yes?

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

And if you encrypt your data, you will have to supply the decryption keys on demand, or face up to two years in jail. If you even tell some-one their internet usage is being (or has been) intercepted, you can face jail too.

Plus, if you ever ARE charged, any lawyer with a half brain would question how the evidence was collected against you (you know, that little right you have that protects you from unreasonable search and seizure).

Odd query: The Sixth Amendment includes the right of the accused "to be confronted with the witnesses against him". How advanced do these things have to get, before they qualify as "witnesses" (instead of simple tools)? And can a defendant subpenoa an FBI geek and demand that he/she explain the workings of Carnivore to the jury?

I respect the FBI. I even trust them ... a little. But my respect rests upon the fact they are constrained by the laws, traditions, and people of the United States. It doesn't take long to slide from law enforcement to police state. And because I respect the FBI, I don't want them to ever be faced with that temptation.

I suppose you believe the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are also criminal-coddling. I mean, if we want to catch criminals, why require search warrants? They just slow down the process and allow the "guilty" to go free...

A free and dignified people must always evaluate any expansion of governmental power, to judge it as to its merits and appropriatness. What are we gaining here? And what are we being asked to yield? From everything -- I mean everything -- that has come out about Carnivore, my opinion is that we are being asked to yield important and vital rights, and that in return we are being offered nothing that is not already available.

For a people to remain free and strong, the government must never be treated like a black box. We own the government, and it's our right and our duty to look under the hood and see how the engine's running.

We have to hand over some kind of power to law enforcement agencies, or anyone can do anything that want.

If the FBI's motives are so pure, why is the operation -- and for some time, the mere existence -- of Carnivore such a closely-held secret. Why can't the FBI obtain email logs from the ISPs, who collect them for legitmate reason? What else does Carnivore do -- and if the answer is "nothing", why is the FBI afraid to let anyone see the box?

I wonder if the American people are worth saving, if we're so ready to abandon fundamental Consitutional rights ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated") in return for hypothetical payoff.

No, it was 75 years until the Sonny Bono Copyright Act, which extended them to 100 years. This applies to at least books too.

Close, but no cigar... Per the US copyright office:

HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES

Works Originally Created On or After January 1, 1978:

A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created Before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date:

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered Before January 1, 1978:

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.

For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a, "Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."

With a 30+ year shelf life, it's a great archiving format for 10+ years where magnetic tape is not.

While I do not doubt that DVD-RAM on Linux is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I do doubt that at this stage of the game that you can predict how long the media will last. Last I checked, the preservation issues are still an open question. Check out the little blurb on the Library of Congress website to get a feel for how much is really unknown about preserving data on optical discs.

My guess is that is probably will not matter for the average user. I could care less about whatever may be backed up on the hundreds of discs that once held data for my old Windows 3.1 box. I probably will not care about the backups from my current linux machine 10 years from now either.

Yet, there are going to be people out there making the same assertions/assumptions you are making here. They are going to back their data up and forget about it. Then, they are going to have to live through all the issues that plagued books, film, photographs, computer media, and on and on. Anyone remember all the trouble there was reading census tapes, space mission data tapes, etc.? Anyone notice that drawer of color photographs in your grandmother's house starting to fade?

But that was film, analog tape, or some other medium, this time it will be different, right? Well, if you believe that, you are quite a bit more optimistic than I.

Don't worry, I promise not to say, "I told you so," when all those files you snapped of your family using your digital camera and saved on your 30+ year media are lost ten years from now.

Take a peek at the Bill of Rights, and tell me if there is any guarantee against a local government placing "reasonable" restrictions on certain types of speech. I don't think there is any such prohibition.

I think we all need to be a tad more careful when asserting our "Constitutional Rights" to know what exactly the limits of those rights are. We cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and in Indianapolis it looks like a 10 year old can't play a violent game. Big deal.

47.How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentages of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See Circular 21 and FL 102.

Here is what heppened.

For a long time Democrats ruled the congress. They kept putting their pet projects as riders and the republican presidents pretty much had to either sign or scrap the whole bill. Usually of course you attached your pet project to cancer research bill or something and when the president vetoed it or you opponents objected you got to yell Mr. So or so is against cancer research!."

That's not the only fact you got wrong. Presidents have been lobbying for line-item veto power since Jefferson. The first line-item veto legislation was proposed in congress in 1876, 121 years before one ever went into effect.

The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was became Public Law 104-130, going in to effect 1/1/1997. To quote the LOC abstract:

Whenever the President signed a bill or joint resolution, the President could cancel in whole (1) any dollar amount of discretionary budget authority, (2) any item of new direct spending, and (3) certain limited tax benefits. In exercising this authority, the President had to determine that such cancellation would (1) reduce the federal budget deficit, (2) not impair any essential government functions, and (3) not harm the national interest.

Then you said:

Then in a brilliant move at the end of the Bush presidency the democrats smelled a winner in Clinton and they passed the line item bill even though for years they were against it.

Surprise surprise the republicans now got to be on the receiving end of the shaft (so be careful what you ask for boys). So they challenged the law and the supreme court bailed them out by declaring the thing unconstitutional (not surprising how many republicans on the court).

As the title of the Act suggests, it was enacted in 1996, towards the end of Clintons first term. Both the House and the Senate were, at the time, Republican controlled, majority having been secured in the 1994 elections. It was a plank on the GOP's so-called "Contract with America", the only one Clinton supported. It went into effect 1/1/1997. Clinton applied it to an appropriations bill later that month. On 2/27/1997 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case Clinton v. City of New York, which was brought by NYC and a group of Idaho Potato growers:

New York City sued to restore a provision that would have let the city and New York state raise taxes on hospitals and use the money to attract federal Medicaid payments.

The Snake River Potato Growers sued over Clinton's veto of a tax measure that would have allowed agricultural processors to defer capital gains taxes when they sell such facilities to farmers' cooperatives (source)

When the court's decision was announced, Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) called it "a great day for the U.S. Constitution."

--

Maybe I am too suspicious of the people in Washington. Wasn't the movie "Distinguished Gentlemen" a documentary?

No URL, other than Thomas, the Library of Congress web site. Because it's a web front-end to a live non-web database, URLs you get from the Thomas search engine aren't useful for more than a few minutes.

The copyright office has posted the post-reply hearings regarding the DMCA circumvention rulemaking. Have you hugged your Librarian of Congress recently? I hope so, because his office is going to decide the fate of publication and fair use as we know it... Unless Orrin Hatch gets entirely fed up with the RIAA and fixes the DMCA singlehandedly.

Also, 2600, the EFF, the MPAA, and the Harvard Open Law discussion list prepare for the trial over the publication of DeCSS, in which a preliminary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on the defendant's speech will be decided simultaneously with the merits of the trial on July 17th.

If I did my research correctly, this is bill number H. R. 3125. Go to the Thomas site at the Library of Congress and enter that in as a search parameter.

If you actually look at the DMCA it's not nearly as bad as the lawsuits citing it have made it out to be (backed up by some seriously bizarre judicial rulings). For example, DeCSS is clearly meant to fall under the priviso allowing for reverse-engineering for purposes of interoperability, despite what the RIAA would have you believe.

• Amendment IX
• 
  
  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Amendment IX
• 
  
  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Of course, people actually downloading the whole human genome probable wouldn't worry about this, but couldn't they use a better compression format than .zip? I bet using bzip2 or rar would shave a couple of hundred MBs off of that 753MB file. Also, the differences in compression techniques would be interesting to see on a large group of files mainly consisting of G, A, C, and T. -- demiurge You find a file that appears important and obliterate it from memory!!! Score one for the downtrodden hacker!

• G -- 00
• A -- 01
• T -- 10
• C -- 11

This would only work for the .fa files, but .fa files can contain "N"s also. If you just want to browse the Genome, look through the pieces directory. .

I've got one of those Intellimouse Explorers (the huge silver ones with the superfluous tail light and like three extra buttons; well, what the hell, here's a http://www.microsoft.com/Mouse/explorer.htm link) and sites that won't let you back out are an incredible annoyance. See, two of the buttons on there serve as Forward/Back (respectively) while browsing the web, and after about 20 minutes of using them, I was hooked. You wouldn't believe how simple (and remarkably intuitive) to navigate with your thumb. Now if I could just find a good use for those buttons in Half-Life... I mean, sure, it's easy enough to hold down the back button and select the page before the offending site, but that would require moving my cursor over six or so linear inches of desktop space. Isn't that just a little bit unreasonable? No? Ah well.

WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords; To prepare derivative works based upon the work; To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works; To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40,Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

Do I need an ISBN?
If you want to make any sales to bookstores, you need to have an ISBN. If you want people to be able to find your book in the Books in Print directory, you need an ISBN. If you are publishing a book, odds are that not having one will do nothing but hurt your sales.

LOC should have all books published in the US, and a goodly number of those published outside the US (although the collection is nowhere near complete, nor is it intended to be, for OUS books). One caveat is that LOC is somewhat slow to catalog new books, so books published within the last month or two may not be in there.

A large number of other libraries also have Z39.50 gateways to their catalogs, so you could even sytematically try other libraries' catalogs if you don't find it in LOC.

LOC should have all books published in the US, and a goodly number of those published outside the US (although the collection is nowhere near complete, nor is it intended to be, for OUS books). One caveat is that LOC is somewhat slow to catalog new books, so books published within the last month or two may not be in there.

A large number of other libraries also have Z39.50 gateways to their catalogs, so you could even sytematically try other libraries' catalogs if you don't find it in LOC.

Checking with the Library of Congress legislation site, we find a number of bills related to digital signatures. The one referred to in the Cryptome article seems to be S.761, "The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act", which has passed both House and Senate and has been sent to the President for signature or veto. So this is further along than the Slashdot article indicates.

Unless this is it in the House and the Senate. The House passed the Senate version. I read through the first couple of sections (snore) and didn't see anything horrible. The bill has been sent to the President for signature.