Slashdot Mirror

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.

Not being a lawyer, the distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive copyright had escaped me. I found an interesting summary of the potential issues in a different context. You are clearly right about that.

I note with some some interest that neither public performance nor public display is covered by the GPL. Therefore both remain with the original copyright owner. Thus if a theme is GPLed, the copyright owner can potentially sue over a screenshot. There would appear to be nothing preventing Linus Torvalds to sue a publically available Linux server. I sort of knew that there were some unresolved issues around which a license could be developed. I had not realized that such major issues have been ignored by the GPL. In fact item 0 clearly explains that they are not addressed. (And one could theoretically ship a second license along with a piece of GPLed software putting restrictions on the use of said software for public display.)

Hmmm...

Cheers,
Ben

I wonder whether you can sue legislators who pass unconstitutional legislation. Clearly, they violate our civil rights whenever they do so.

They [members of Congress] shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

However, to be fair, there is a differing view at the US Government Printing Office Annotated US Constitution (http://www.access. gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/art1.html):

This clause is practically obsolete. It applies only to arrests in civil suits, which were still common in this country at the time the Constitution was adopted. It does not apply to service of process in either civil or criminal cases. Nor does it apply to arrest in any criminal case. The phrase ``treason, felony or breach of the peace'' is interpreted to withdraw all criminal offenses from the operation of the privilege.

john said:
[in reply to dhartung, myself]:
>>The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws.

>And real world laws, and many prior court ruleings, allow for the use of other's material for a variety of uses, including parody, commentary, critisism, etc...
>"Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: [remainder of copyright law snipped]

Wonderful. You understand copyright law. Too bad this is a trademark case.

>PeatingTA, is clearly a commentary, and/or criticism of PethicalTA. Wether or not PeatingTA makes money or not is irrelevant.
>Weird AL certianly makes money off HIS parodies, yet they are still protected as fair use.

And indeed, the Tasty Animals site remains online. The parody content was unaffected by this ruling. There is no argument that the parody content is protected (although there are other ways it could infringe PETA trademarks, e.g. a parody logo, or copyrights, e.g. excessive quoting).

>The mass judge is clearly an idiot who ignored YEARS of precidents protecting fair use rights.

Actually, the judge in question is in Virginia (the quoted article is from the Boston Globe, but datelined Norfolk, VA). The NSI contract states that the jurisdiction of choice is the local courts in Fairfax County, Virginia, and secondarily the Eastern District Federal District Court encompassing it, so most domain name rulings come through courts in this area. (Unfortunately, and rather ironically, they're not online.)

Fair use is a concept deriving from copyright law. Fair use under trademark law is a little more difficult to prove, which is the defendant's responsibility (and under civil litigation, you may recall, the standard isn't innocent until proven guilty; it's preponderance of the evidence). Fair use does not supersede confusion. If there's a chance the consumer may be confused by, say, a "Coke adds life" pro-drug parody bumper sticker, well, the parody producer is in a difficult legal position.

The 1995 Trademark Dilution act clarified case law somewhat, but while it explicitly protects parody and fair use, there is a direct contradiction once a domain name is involved. Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use". This is where Doughney ran into trouble, even though his parody was arguably "non-commercial" in that it was not intended to be profitable. By having a live domain name, he was invading the sphere of commerce in question, the internet namespace, and therefore open to trademark dilution questions.

In short, "fair use" does not normally extend to domain names. petasucks.org WOULD be a clear parody in terms of the name, but peta.org itself is a collision.

Keep in mind that this is FAR from being a precedent-setting decision. The real precedent was years ago, when Planned Parenthood won back the plannedparenthood.org name from a group that used it to distribute anti-abortion literature.

Or perhaps he's a militant PETA zealot. Or perhaps he's one of those RIAA/MPAA/metallica/DMCA types who beleives that fair use should be abolished.

Or perhaps he's actually a jurist who applies the law regardless of whether he approves of the plaintiff, the defendant, either, or neither. Why make assumptions you can't support? Why not simply argue the law?

Which are you?

Which do you think I am? I don't have to explain myself.

In any event, you, and that judge, are wrong.

I would suggest you do more reading on trademark law before you say that again. In any case, the 1995 Trademark Dilution law is quite clear, and the 1999 Anticybersquatting law is even clearer. (I suggest you read them.)

If you want change, write your congressman.
----

john said:
[in reply to dhartung, myself]:
>>The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws.

>And real world laws, and many prior court ruleings, allow for the use of other's material for a variety of uses, including parody, commentary, critisism, etc...
>"Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: [remainder of copyright law snipped]

Wonderful. You understand copyright law. Too bad this is a trademark case.

>PeatingTA, is clearly a commentary, and/or criticism of PethicalTA. Wether or not PeatingTA makes money or not is irrelevant.
>Weird AL certianly makes money off HIS parodies, yet they are still protected as fair use.

And indeed, the Tasty Animals site remains online. The parody content was unaffected by this ruling. There is no argument that the parody content is protected (although there are other ways it could infringe PETA trademarks, e.g. a parody logo, or copyrights, e.g. excessive quoting).

>The mass judge is clearly an idiot who ignored YEARS of precidents protecting fair use rights.

Actually, the judge in question is in Virginia (the quoted article is from the Boston Globe, but datelined Norfolk, VA). The NSI contract states that the jurisdiction of choice is the local courts in Fairfax County, Virginia, and secondarily the Eastern District Federal District Court encompassing it, so most domain name rulings come through courts in this area. (Unfortunately, and rather ironically, they're not online.)

Fair use is a concept deriving from copyright law. Fair use under trademark law is a little more difficult to prove, which is the defendant's responsibility (and under civil litigation, you may recall, the standard isn't innocent until proven guilty; it's preponderance of the evidence). Fair use does not supersede confusion. If there's a chance the consumer may be confused by, say, a "Coke adds life" pro-drug parody bumper sticker, well, the parody producer is in a difficult legal position.

The 1995 Trademark Dilution act clarified case law somewhat, but while it explicitly protects parody and fair use, there is a direct contradiction once a domain name is involved. Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use". This is where Doughney ran into trouble, even though his parody was arguably "non-commercial" in that it was not intended to be profitable. By having a live domain name, he was invading the sphere of commerce in question, the internet namespace, and therefore open to trademark dilution questions.

In short, "fair use" does not normally extend to domain names. petasucks.org WOULD be a clear parody in terms of the name, but peta.org itself is a collision.

Keep in mind that this is FAR from being a precedent-setting decision. The real precedent was years ago, when Planned Parenthood won back the plannedparenthood.org name from a group that used it to distribute anti-abortion literature.

Or perhaps he's a militant PETA zealot. Or perhaps he's one of those RIAA/MPAA/metallica/DMCA types who beleives that fair use should be abolished.

Or perhaps he's actually a jurist who applies the law regardless of whether he approves of the plaintiff, the defendant, either, or neither. Why make assumptions you can't support? Why not simply argue the law?

Which are you?

Which do you think I am? I don't have to explain myself.

In any event, you, and that judge, are wrong.

I would suggest you do more reading on trademark law before you say that again. In any case, the 1995 Trademark Dilution law is quite clear, and the 1999 Anticybersquatting law is even clearer. (I suggest you read them.)

If you want change, write your congressman.
----

john said:
[in reply to dhartung, myself]:
>>The internet isn't exempt from real-world laws.

>And real world laws, and many prior court ruleings, allow for the use of other's material for a variety of uses, including parody, commentary, critisism, etc...
>"Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: [remainder of copyright law snipped]

Wonderful. You understand copyright law. Too bad this is a trademark case.

>PeatingTA, is clearly a commentary, and/or criticism of PethicalTA. Wether or not PeatingTA makes money or not is irrelevant.
>Weird AL certianly makes money off HIS parodies, yet they are still protected as fair use.

And indeed, the Tasty Animals site remains online. The parody content was unaffected by this ruling. There is no argument that the parody content is protected (although there are other ways it could infringe PETA trademarks, e.g. a parody logo, or copyrights, e.g. excessive quoting).

>The mass judge is clearly an idiot who ignored YEARS of precidents protecting fair use rights.

Actually, the judge in question is in Virginia (the quoted article is from the Boston Globe, but datelined Norfolk, VA). The NSI contract states that the jurisdiction of choice is the local courts in Fairfax County, Virginia, and secondarily the Eastern District Federal District Court encompassing it, so most domain name rulings come through courts in this area. (Unfortunately, and rather ironically, they're not online.)

Fair use is a concept deriving from copyright law. Fair use under trademark law is a little more difficult to prove, which is the defendant's responsibility (and under civil litigation, you may recall, the standard isn't innocent until proven guilty; it's preponderance of the evidence). Fair use does not supersede confusion. If there's a chance the consumer may be confused by, say, a "Coke adds life" pro-drug parody bumper sticker, well, the parody producer is in a difficult legal position.

The 1995 Trademark Dilution act clarified case law somewhat, but while it explicitly protects parody and fair use, there is a direct contradiction once a domain name is involved. Case law is showing that having a domain name registered and pointing to a website is, for all intents and purposes, "commercial use". This is where Doughney ran into trouble, even though his parody was arguably "non-commercial" in that it was not intended to be profitable. By having a live domain name, he was invading the sphere of commerce in question, the internet namespace, and therefore open to trademark dilution questions.

In short, "fair use" does not normally extend to domain names. petasucks.org WOULD be a clear parody in terms of the name, but peta.org itself is a collision.

Keep in mind that this is FAR from being a precedent-setting decision. The real precedent was years ago, when Planned Parenthood won back the plannedparenthood.org name from a group that used it to distribute anti-abortion literature.

Or perhaps he's a militant PETA zealot. Or perhaps he's one of those RIAA/MPAA/metallica/DMCA types who beleives that fair use should be abolished.

Or perhaps he's actually a jurist who applies the law regardless of whether he approves of the plaintiff, the defendant, either, or neither. Why make assumptions you can't support? Why not simply argue the law?

Which are you?

Which do you think I am? I don't have to explain myself.

In any event, you, and that judge, are wrong.

I would suggest you do more reading on trademark law before you say that again. In any case, the 1995 Trademark Dilution law is quite clear, and the 1999 Anticybersquatting law is even clearer. (I suggest you read them.)

If you want change, write your congressman.
----

(* By "unusual," I mean having an unusual form -- something other than ordinary text, recorded music, works of art, etc.)

Seems like there's a pretty clear clause there regarding the separation church and state; which is also to say nothing of 200 years of precedent.

Regards,

(jfb)

The DMCA clearly states that reverse engineering is an exemption to the rule that you cannot circumvent a technological measure. I keep hearing over and over that it's bad because you can't distrubute the product of your efforts. Blah, blah, here is what it says damnit. Those people are wrong.

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

Sounds bad eh, read the rest of it. Here are the exemptions that are relevant to this story...

`(d) EXEMPTION FOR NONPROFIT LIBRARIES, ARCHIVES, AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS- [...]
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) [...]
`(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- [...]

It even says right in there that you can distribute your findings. I mean really, it's just a draft of copyright law specific to advanced technology. If someone can find me a specific line in there that states why it's a bad thing, I'll be happy to concede.

What's bad is that once it's been proven that you have circumvented a technological measure you have to prove in court that you were exempt. If the DeCSS author had kept detailed records of his intent and methods and archived them he could have avoided this whole mess.

Here is Sec. 1201 of the DMCA tell me where it doesn't allow for fair use. I really want to know.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR022 65:@@@L

(REVISED AS OF 11/04/97 -- Passed House, amended)

No Electronic Theft (NET) Act - Amends Federal copyright law to define "financial gain" to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, one or more copies of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000. Provides that evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

Let's see $1000/$17 per cd = 58 cds ... 58 cds * 10 songs per cd = 580 songs per 180 day period (3 songs a day)?

Extends the statute of limitations for criminal copyright infringement from three to five years.

They can come after for up to five year from the infingement

Revises Federal criminal code provisions regarding criminal copyright infringement to provide for a fine and up to five years' imprisonment for infringing a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, at least ten copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works which have a total retail value of more than $2,500.

$2500/$17 per cd = 147 cds ... 147 cds * 10 songs per cd = 1470 songs (8 songs a day)... more than this is a Federal crime?

Provides for: (1) up to three years' imprisonment and fines in infringement cases described above (exclusive of commercial gain intent considerations); (2) up to six years' imprisonment and a fine for a second or subsequent felony offense under (1); and (3) up to one year's imprisonment and a fine for the reproduction or distribution of one or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works with a total retail value of more than $1,000.

Penalities and repeat offense provisions

Requires, during preparation of the presentence report in cases of criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of live musical performances, and trafficking in counterfeit goods or services, that victims of the offense be permitted to submit, and the probation officer receive, a victim impact statement that identifies the victim and the extent and scope of the victim's injury and loss, including the estimated economic impact of the offense on that victim.

How to report infringement

Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime and adequately reflects consideration of the retail value and quantity of items with respect to which the crime against intellectual property was committed.

Can anyone provide an expert opinion?

Ok, professor. Let's try some real authority for a change. From the Copyright Office website:

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

AND ALSO...
Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.

AND AGAIN FROM THE MOUTH OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE...
The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

AND FINALLY, FROM SECTION 101 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT:
"Copyright owner ", with respect to any one of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, refers to the owner of that particular right.

BTW, the Copyright Office quotes are from:
click here for accurate information :P
And the Copyright Act is at:
click here for more accurate information :P

Have fun learning!

Ok, professor. Let's try some real authority for a change. From the Copyright Office website:

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

AND ALSO...
Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.

AND AGAIN FROM THE MOUTH OF THE COPYRIGHT OFFICE...
The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

AND FINALLY, FROM SECTION 101 OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT:
"Copyright owner ", with respect to any one of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, refers to the owner of that particular right.

BTW, the Copyright Office quotes are from:
click here for accurate information :P
And the Copyright Act is at:
click here for more accurate information :P

Have fun learning!

USA Democracy lists bills in the current session of Congress and how legislators voted on each bill. They don't appear to have old records, so you can't look 8 years in the past to see if a candidate's vote has been consistent. They allow you to vote on bills and compare your vote to your representatives' vote...but you cannot compare your representatives to their election opponents, nor can you look at presidential candidates or politicians in another district. Nice setup, but nearly worthless to me.

THOMAS is similar to USA Democracy but with an archive, so you can look at past votes. Still, it gives information only on federal officeholders, and you have to look through the bill history to collate information about a candidate. Yuck.

Project Vote-Smart is a bit closer to what I'd like to see: It lists candidates, not just incumbents, although it only has voting record for federal incumbents. Thus, there are no records at all for George W. Bush (no info on state bills and positions) and the latest records for Al Gore are from 1992 when he was a senator. A dribble of info on this site, nothing more.

I want information on a candidate from *before* he became a senator. I want information on what he claims to support cross-referenced to how he's actually voted. I want to see the state legislature voting records...what the hell has George W. Bush been doing in Texas? And I want to compare candidates side-by-side on the same page.

I am a registered independant, and I am shopping for a vote. The candidates are products to me -- I want the same kind of shopping experience I get when comparing hardware on a retailer's site. Full info and directly comparable data, nothing less will do.

I hope Scott's Democracy Project has what I'm looking for. Oh, well, if it doesn't, I can always compete with him by putting up my own site in 2004.

People who actually want to change things rarely do it anonymously...Anonymous actions rarely have the same effect.

He equates copyright infringement with theft.

He characterizes current technology as "offering comfort to hackers, spies, pirates and pedophiles."

He says that if intellectual property is not respected, the Internet will "suffer the fate of the buffalo", and "wither and die like the Hantavirus".

He claims to know about technology that can "trace every Internet download and tag every file."

He defines anonymity as meaning "being able to get away with stealing, or hacking..."

Allowing anonymity on the internet "would undermine the very basis of our civilized society".

The widespread copyright infringement of Napster users "is suspiciously like the Old World principle called slavery." [The musicians being the "slaves", I guess.]

The current dangerous anarchy of the internet, like the equally unjust Soviet Union, "will crack, crumble and collapse."

He declares war on the Internet, for its own good, and compares it to World War II. If only the forces of Copyright can bring "enough men and women, weaponry and money" to bear against the Internet, as the Allies did against Nazi Germany, then the world will be once again made safe.

(For the record: I don't support MP3-bootlegging or other bootlegging. I find that die-hard "software pirates" are some of the least creative and forward-thinking people I know; they're so interested in getting the popular goods that they never stop to think if there's something better than that bootleg copy of W2K out there. However, I believe the risk to freedom posed by regulation and policing of this bootlegging is far, far greater than that posed by the bootlegging itself. Consider the War on Drugs -- yes, there are a lot of street drugs out there that can fuck you up, but in the end the cops and the prisons and the illegality have done more social harm than all the pot, coke, and junk in the world ever could.)

Hrm...I hadn't thought of that before, but you could be right. Returning China to "Normal Trade Relations" is overtly a political move anyway. It won't really change things except in the political landscape. Ever notice all the "Made in China" items that you can buy at your local store? Well if we didn't have trade how did we get them? The fact is that every year we decide wither or not to trade with China for the duration of that year, and that decicion can be revoked at any time. The whole "embargo" is simply a political bargining tool. Now if we take this threat away will China be more apt to give Taiwan it's freedom? Probably not, but it is a good showing, and will probably play well in the international scene. Myself, I belive when we place a trade embargo on someone we should cut off ALL trade until they show some good faith ( which China HAS NOT DONE ).

But that is a very intresting idea aclaudet, I wouldn't doubt if it had some kernel of truth to it :)

PS: The text of the bill can be found here there's a PDF version but it's got a horrible layout.

You don't have to be actually dealing any drugs to be robbed at gunpoint by the cops. Just drive down I-10 through Louisiana with some cash in your car. Oh, yeah, and it helps - a lot - if you're black.

You think I'm kidding, don't you? God, I wish I were. Here, read this. Or, from the President of the ACLU, this. Or lest you fall for the anti-ACLU business that is so popular with demagogues in this country, and dismiss the above as just the ranting of some left-wing weirdos, here is a statement published by the office of conservative Republican congressman Henry Hyde. In fact, the appaling damage which the logic-twisting pro-police-state judicial activists of the Rehnquist Supreme Court have inflicted upon the Constitutional rights of American citizens has outraged many Congressmen of both the Democratic party and the Republican party, who have responded this year with legislation to undo their excesses and restore those Constitutional rights to the public. This bill has not yet been signed by President Clinton, who has a terrible record of siding with the law enforcement gang against the interests of mere citizens. Let us hope that FBI Director Freeh and Drug Tsar McCafferty (that war criminal) don't talk him into vetoing this bill.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Remember that copying songs, or TV shows, or poetry is not evil or, necessarily, illegal. Copyright violation is not murder, theft, bigamy, incest or jaywalking. It is violation of a category of law that society has put in place to foster the common good through creativity. Society has decided that efficiency is promoted by installing stop lights at intersections and creating a crime known as jaywalking. There is nothing evil about jaywalking and there is nothing evil about copyright violation -- it is simply the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that copying broadcast TV shows for personal convenience was noncommercial "fair use" in the Betamax case. For Congress to outlaw, and the Supreme Court to uphold a prohibition on copying copyright music from a commercial CD to your hard drive or from your hard drive to your RIO for your own noncommercial listening pleasure would be a stretch.

Once a copyright piece of music is legally on your hard drive which is accessible to others on the internet, what should be the governing legal principles? It seems to me that while there are two possible outcomes in theory, there is only one practical outcome. The first is that Congress and the Courts decide that noncommercial exchange is fair use, akin to playing your boom box at the beach. There is no way that Congress will outlaw, and the Supreme Court will uphold a prohibition on file transfer software. There are enough files that aren't copyright and plenty of instances where the copyright holders want to do file transfers to establish the legitimacy of file transfer programs. Using legal software for noncommercial exchange of copyright material could, conceivably be found to fair use. I don't think that will happen.

I think that the Congress and the Courts will resolve this by taxing the users and giving the money to the copyright holders. Users of audiotape and audio CDR's are taxed (they call it a royalty) for the benefit of copyright holders. (For example, see 65 FR 19025, April 10, 2000.) Once the RIAA has either driven Napster into the ground with legal costs, or gotten some part of the exchange process declared illegal, they can get Napster to gather information about what is being exchanged that will be valuable both for marketing purposes and for establishing the tax rate. Remember that even noncommercial colleges pay annual royalties for use of copyright non-dramatic music.

The RIAA has managed to get the U.S. government to tax almost everything that moves for their benefit under the name of copyright. They can't get the Congress to tax the digital exchange via Napster, Gnutella, etc. until the RIAA establishes that there is something illegal going on. Hence the law suits. Once they have established, either through a attrition or a legitimate reviewed legal victory, that there is some copyright violation, the problem is to figure out what to tax. Hard drives? DSL connections? RIOs? Any device that plays MP3? All of the above?

The ironic thing is that MP3's and Napster are almost certainly boosting CD sales. MP3's boost the demand for music by increasing the situations where you listen to your own music rather than the radio. Ripping MP3s from your own CDs is so much more efficient than downloading, checking, and organizing that if you have more money than time, it is more reliable to buy a CD and rip it. For those with more time than money, Napster lowers the average price per song which, depending on the elasticity, may actually increase total dollars spent. Increasing CD sales coincident with the increased use of Napster, if sustained, will mean that copyright holders will get increased royalties along with increased sales.

Currently, copyright lasts at least 95 years, and whenever the time rolls around when copyrights start to expire, Disney buys another 20-year copyright extension from Congress. This time it was the Sonny Bono Act (PDF factsheet).

I just checked The Directory of Online Service Provide Agents and Oxford University isn't listed. Probably didn't bother registering an agent because they're not in the US... or can non-US ISP's even register?

Copyrights have to do with text made public in some way.

Trade secrets have to do with documents protected by secrets and contracts. The two may not co-exist....

(a)Copyright protection subsists,in accordance with this title,in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived,reproduced,or otherwise communicated,either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.Works of authorship include the follow- ing categories:
(1)literary works;
(2)musical works,including any accompanying words;
(3)dramatic works,including any accompanying music;
(4)pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5)pictorial,graphic,and sculptural works;
(6)motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7)sound recordings;and
(8)architectural works.

(emphasis mine)

Note that actually communicating it with anyone isn't a requirement... all you need to do is create an original work and set it down in a way that you could communicate it.

Interestingly, part (b) deals with the ideas expressed in copyright material:

(b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea,procedure,process,system,method of operation,concept,principle,or discovery,regardless of the form in which it is described,explained,illustrated,or embodied in such work.

Or in other words, Microsoft has copyright protection for their description of KerberMS, but not of KerberMS itself - that's something that's dealt with by patent law and trade secrecy.

[TMB]

But I have a question for the legally inclined. How binding are all of these thinly-veiled hostilities? For example, what would have happened if Andover hadn't replied to Microsoft's letter? Were they obligated to under law? And similarly, is Microsoft required to respond in kind?

Copyright violations are civil matters in which damages can be awarded. Both parties have an obligation to try to resolve the matter amongst themselves before heading for a courtroom. Failure to do so will not be taken lightly by the judge.

The issues here, though, relate to damages. If it is considered a trade secret, how does exposure of the secret damage the value of the protocol more than it would be damaged without the exposure of the secret? The answer is clearly none since the secret was posted on the Internet.

How does posting the copyrighted material devalue the copyright or the reputation of the author ? The answer, once again, is not at all. This copyright was free.

Since there are no damages, the copyright issue is substantially weakened. Basically, I don't think M$ has a prayer.

For some reason, people seem to think that you can never post copyrighted material without permission. However, you can. It is called fair use .

That being said, I don't think Microsoft has any reason to answer questions unrelated to trade secret exposure or copyright violation and damages. Those questions are sort of included to improve the public's perception of /. Such irrelevant questions would include


1. How can Microsoft claim proprietary protections for enhancement to an open standard protocol?

2. How can Microsoft use the Kerberos name, which signifies an open standard protocol, in connection with a proprietary protocol?

7. Why wouldn't prospective purchasers of Windows 2000 need to know the contents of Microsoft's Kerberos specification in order to make informed judgments regarding interoperability in connection with their purchasing decisions?

8. Why shouldn't Slashdot users and the general public be able to view this protocol for purposes of commentary and criticism in light of its apparent relevance to issues in the government's antitrust litigation?

the DMCA

First: why does it take so long to pass a simple piece of legislation? All they have to do is require "UCE:" or "AD:" at the beginning of every email, and with stiff penalties, that would be the end of spam. And that's a mild remedy -- there are better ways.

Second, I don't think HR 3113 was being referenced in the article. It seems as though the conference participants were suggesting more vicious legislation (the bounty hunter reference). HR 3113 primarily seems to establish one big opt-out list maintained by the FCC (yech), which you can ad yourself to, and UCE people must honor that opt-out.

On the plus, side the bill seems to offer up to $500/violation or $25k/day -- and as I read it, the lay person getting a piece of spam could literally sue for $25k or 75k for a willful violation. Can you say, "ow?"

Here's the link for the bill info:
HR3113.

It's called the Anti-CyberSquatting act (or some such nonsense).

The bill was S.1948 (read Title III) and passed as an amendment to other legislation.

NSI revoking the domain simply because you decided to go elsewhere (and had plenty of time left on your existing legitimate registration) would violate several areas of law

Indeed, which is why they're required by ICANN policy to transfer it to your chosen registrar on your request. If they were to violate this, they could be booted as a registrar, apart from any other legal considerations. Domain transfer is a built-in feature of the SRS (shared registration system), which many of the knee-jerkers on Slashdot don't seem to know or care.

Think about this -- what would happen if NSI claimed ownership of Microsoft's or Yahoo's or Altavista's domain name? The intellectual-property lawyers would be all over them in seconds! The name itself has got to be the intellectual property of the company.

NSI was not claiming the intellectual property rights; these two rulings were not addressing the question of whether the company or NSI owned the rights to the domain. They were about whether a domain name is subject to certain property laws such as garnishment (Virginia) or registrar liability (California). They haven't really addressed the issue of whether John Smith or Mary Jones or Widgets, Inc. "owns" a domain name; if anything, the judges and ICANN have all tiptoed around this question. The judge in California practically begged Congress to pass a law settling the question for once and for all.

Guess who Congress would side with on that one?

Anyone up to putting a RFC together? (And subsequently stuffing it down ICANN's throat?)

An RFC for what? Are you sure the things you want aren't already in place? In any case, this has already moved far beyond the capability of the net to "legislate" and well into the realm of intellectual property law. That RFC wouldn't be worth the paper it is (not) printed on; one lawsuit could blow it away like so much lint.
----

"Initially, we must point out that NSI acknowledged during oral argument before this Court that the right to use a domain name is a form of intangible personal property. That position is consistent with the one NSI took in Network Solutions, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc. .... However ... we do not believe that it is essential to the outcome of this case to decide whether the circuit court correctly characterized a domain name as a "form of intellectual property."

Generally speaking, if there was no clause in the contract explicitly stating that the work done by the previous company was to be considered a "work made for hire," the previous company is considered the author, and thus, the controlling party of IP rights.

Circular 9 from the Copyright Office does a good job of explaining these issues.

From the circular:

Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:

(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a sound recording, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire. For the purpose of the foregoing sentence, a "supplementary work" is a work prepared for a publication as a secondary adjunct to a work by another author for the purpose of introducing, concluding, illustrating, explaining, revising, commenting upon, or assisting in the use of the other work, such as forewords, afterwords, pictorial illustrations, maps, charts, tables, editorial notes, musical arrangements, answer material for tests, bibliographies, appendixes, and indexes; and an "instructional text" is a literary, pictorial, or graphic work prepared for publication and with the purpose of use in systematic instructional activities.

(emphasis added)

I checked the copyright office's web site for the list of things that couldn't be copyrighted. Included on that list was "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." That's a pretty good description of what HTML does.

Also on the list was "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." HTML code would seem to fall into that category as well.

I'd say that there is no standing to claim HTML as copyrightable, but who knows what silliness the courts will engage in this time.

-- Diana Hsieh

I checked the copyright office's web site for the list of things that couldn't be copyrighted. Included on that list was "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring." That's a pretty good description of what HTML does.

Also on the list was "works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship." HTML code would seem to fall into that category as well.

I'd say that there is no standing to claim HTML as copyrightable, but who knows what silliness the courts will engage in this time.

-- Diana Hsieh

The comment is flamebait. If you actually go (like I did) and read the bill (go to Thomas, search for S. 1948, then look at Sec.1011), then go and look at the actual US Code which it references, you will see the following:

A ''work made for hire'' is - [...] (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work [the change incorporated from S. 1948: as a sound recording], as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire [my emphasis].

This does *not* mean what the author of this comment alleges that it means. No copyrights are ripped away from any artists. It still requires that an artist agrees that the work that he or she is doing *is* a work for hire.

The 1976 updating of the Copyright Act holds that the mere creation of a work of art confers copyrightholder status on the creator. A significant legal action is required to transfer copyright to anyone else. A further legal action is required to certify that a work is being done "for hire".

This really *was* a technical amendment updating Title 17, Sec. 101, Para. 2 to include sound recordings as an area in which work for hire *might* be done. It is *not* a wholesale taking of intellectual property as was alleged by the author of this comment.

In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request. This limitation covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically in the operation of a network. In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider's activities must meet the following conditions: The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider. The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider. The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material. Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary. The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.

Here's the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 in fullhttp:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00227:|TO M:/bss/d104query.html|

Here's the summary of the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/le gislation/dmca.pdf

Here is the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 in full http:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:|TO M:/bss/d105query.html|

Read up!!!!

Rich

In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request. This limitation covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically in the operation of a network. In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider's activities must meet the following conditions: The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider. The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider. The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material. Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary. The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.

Here's the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 in fullhttp:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00227:|TO M:/bss/d104query.html|

Here's the summary of the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/le gislation/dmca.pdf

Here is the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 in full http:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:|TO M:/bss/d105query.html|

Read up!!!!

Rich

In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, transmitting digital information from one point on a network to another at someone else's request. This limitation covers acts of transmission, routing, or providing connections for the information, as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made automatically in the operation of a network. In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider's activities must meet the following conditions: The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider. The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of material by the service provider. The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material. Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and must not be retained for longer than reasonably necessary. The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content.

Here's the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 in fullhttp:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d104:SN00227:|TO M:/bss/d104query.html|

Here's the summary of the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/le gislation/dmca.pdf

Here is the Digital Millenium Act of 1998 in full http:/ /thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HR02281:|TO M:/bss/d105query.html|

Read up!!!!

Rich

1)

Of all the subjects which is the most important for the development of the student? That is, which subject gives the most skills to the student beyond the actual information taught? Why?

2)

What is the goal of teaching Math to children?

3)

Is it to give them skills to manipulate numbers or does it accomplish something else (or maybe both)? What are those skills?

4)

People often say that math teaches abstract reasoning. Is this so, how and why? Could there be a better way to accomplish this?

From "Mathematics Dictionary" 5th Ed.

Arithmetic n The study of the positive integers (1,2,3,4,5, ...) under the operations of addition, subtraction ,multiplication, and division, and the use of the results of these studies in everyday life.

Mathematics n The logical study of shape, arrangemant, quantity, and many related concepts. Mathematics often is divided into three fields: _algebra, _analysis, and _geometry. However, no clear divisions can be made, since these branches have become thoroughly intermingled. Roughly, algebra involves numbers and their abstractions, analysis involves continuity and limits, and geometry is concerned with space and related concepts.

5)

With the development of small computers and calculators do you see the role of math education declining? Why or why not?

In engineering we occasionaly finish a complex analysis which has many possibilities for making mistakes by doing a "sanity check" where we use a less precise but simpler method to check our answer. Stress analysis of a spring using elasticity methods is a good example. I had a 3/4" stack of paper for my analysis, with the pages covered in calculus and static analysis. When I was all done, I checked my spring constant equations against a handbook equation, and I was close. So I assume that I was 'right'. Without the sanity check, I wouldn't really know.

6)

Why are children often forced to memorize multiplication tables and do long division?

7)

Why is it that students who have some deficiency in math are stigmatized as "not so bright" more often than children who fail to do well in other subjects? Conversely, why are children who excel at math considered gifted (more so than other subjects)?"

BTW,
Are the people in your class primarily from the sciences or the humanities? I ask because I have noticed a trend at my university that the students who use math in class regularly (physics, engineering, chemistry, etc.) think that math is an essential life skill for everyone to know, and the students in the humanities (psychology, english, history, etc.) see math as useful in balancing a checkbook, but beyond that, it seems to have little point. "Why did I have to take algebra? I've never used it?" When this comes up, the science types insist that math is an essential skill, but are hard pressed to find "real life" examples of how algebra or geometry could be useful. And we aren't even up to basic Calculus in the discussion! I would like to find a way to convince people that math is useful, not just arithmetic.

Louis Wu

Thinking is one of hardest types of work.

Intellectual property laws were designed to increase the dissemination of information (the reason why all copyrights expire a certain time after the author's death).

Any work created on or after 1923 will remain under copyright forever. Every time the year approaches when copyrights will start to expire again, The Walt Disney Company buys a retroactive copyright term extension from the United States Congress so that o (Mickey Mouse) doesn't fall into public domain. This time it was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF factsheet here), passed in October 1999 by voice vote; representatives and senators didn't even have to account to their constituents for their votes. IANAL, but IMHO this retroactive extension is unconstitutional; it violates the "limited times" provision of Article I Section 8. What kind of cr4ck were our representatives and senators smoking to think that extending copyright 70 years after an artist's death would "progress of science and useful arts"?

• Sonny and Cher (for the Sonny Bono Act)
• Metallica (music sucks; band is not licensing MP3 distribution of its works)
• Dr. Dre (music sucks; so-called "artist" is not licensing MP3 distribution of its works)

Intellectual property laws were designed to increase the dissemination of information (the reason why all copyrights expire a certain time after the author's death).

Any work created on or after 1923 will remain under copyright forever. Every time the year approaches when copyrights will start to expire again, The Walt Disney Company buys a retroactive copyright term extension from the United States Congress so that o (Mickey Mouse) doesn't fall into public domain. This time it was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF factsheet here), passed in October 1999 by voice vote; representatives and senators didn't even have to account to their constituents for their votes. IANAL, but IMHO this retroactive extension is unconstitutional; it violates the "limited times" provision of Article I Section 8. What kind of cr4ck were our representatives and senators smoking to think that extending copyright 70 years after an artist's death would "progress of science and useful arts"?

• Sonny and Cher (for the Sonny Bono Act)
• Metallica (music sucks; band is not licensing MP3 distribution of its works)
• Dr. Dre (music sucks; so-called "artist" is not licensing MP3 distribution of its works)

Doesn't actually have to be art... from http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/ci rc1.html:

WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?

Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

• (1) literary works;
• (2) musical works, including any accompanying words
• (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music
• (4) pantomimes and choreographic works
• (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
• (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works
• (7) sound recordings
• (8) architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

From http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/ci rc1.html:

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.

They allow copyright owners to restrict the mere running of a program--but only if some sort of hard-to-bypass license manager or access control enforces the restrictions. The freedom of free software means that even if we did put such artificial restriction into a program, the user could easily bypass them--and that's a good thing! But it means that new legal power is not available for use for copyleft.

It's all in the interpretation of the DMCA. In fact there are provisions already in place within the very sections that prohibit "circumventing a technological measure", that take into account 'fair use' when refferring to a users freedom...

For example: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

Lower there are provisions to allow the copying of these works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes; etc in sections C.

In fact in section (f) which you don't really hear about that often because people are yelling about how evil the DMCA is, it says:

`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

The DMCA seems like a reasonable and fair document if you actually read it, it *already* takes into account most of the things people mercilessly bash it for not having. It seems like from what I've read users still have the right to crack software they have lawfully purchased and I see nothing wrong with having to pay for a product. I'm not really sure if giving someone a copy of software is fair use though, if you let someone borrow a book you no longer have the book, software can be reproduced indefinately with exact copies.

Anyway here are the offending sections.

Reading the relevant section of the copyright law, I notice that the winner of a lawsuit is entitled to recover attorney's fees, and damages of at least $750 per copy (up to $20000 a copy).

It seems to me that if the owner of the infringed works so desired, he could easily strongarm nVidia into opening their drivers; A lawsuit could end up being extremely costly for nVidia, since presumably several thousand people have downloaded the drivers.

I also notice that under the criminal section of the copyright law, if nVidia loses a lawsuit, they are subject to forfeiture of anything used in the copyright violation. This would probably include all servers and workstations, networking equipment, etc. -- even more reason for them to settle.

It is the purpose of the GPL to increase the amount of Free Software. The only reason I can think of NOT to make nVidia open the driver is that it would make other companies look real hard before looking at adopting Free Software. However, this will only affect people planning to redistribute free software, so I wouldn't think it would be so big an issue.

Reading the relevant section of the copyright law, I notice that the winner of a lawsuit is entitled to recover attorney's fees, and damages of at least $750 per copy (up to $20000 a copy).

It seems to me that if the owner of the infringed works so desired, he could easily strongarm nVidia into opening their drivers; A lawsuit could end up being extremely costly for nVidia, since presumably several thousand people have downloaded the drivers.

I also notice that under the criminal section of the copyright law, if nVidia loses a lawsuit, they are subject to forfeiture of anything used in the copyright violation. This would probably include all servers and workstations, networking equipment, etc. -- even more reason for them to settle.

It is the purpose of the GPL to increase the amount of Free Software. The only reason I can think of NOT to make nVidia open the driver is that it would make other companies look real hard before looking at adopting Free Software. However, this will only affect people planning to redistribute free software, so I wouldn't think it would be so big an issue.

The United States Congress in fact grants federal charters to corporations. Do a search on "corporation" at http://thomas.loc.gov/ for some examples. 'Course, corporations much more typically get charters from individual states (and sometimes they get a charter from the Feds and from a state).

Now that has got to be the most sane advice I have ever seen on /. I think I'll join you. I suggest that the rest of us who'd be just as content to sit on the fence (read /.) jump the hell off and get into the mud. We can complain all we want in an online forum like this, granted there is some notariety with the Slashdot name, but no one *Important* cares. I doubt that my Senators, Bill Roth and Joe Biden, have /. accounts or even know we exist. The point is if we want to make an impression on our *ELECTED representatives*, we must bring it to them. They got a lot of people to look after and can't monitor everything. If there is an issue the house or senate can work, you need to get in touch. Hit up the Congressional website to find your rep's and senators. And if they don't consider your issues as a problem, find a possible replacement for them next election year. Otherwise, run yourself and put it to them. They gotta come back home to campaign sometime!

Bob

It's in

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article I
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power ...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts,
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Well, unix.com is slashdotted, so for this post I'll assume that it is not being sold by Open Group, the rightful owners of the trademark on the name "unix".

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 amends current trademark law to encompass domain names, and has already been tested in the courts. This bill would make registration, use, or sale of the domain by anyone other than the Open Group a crime, and I'm pretty sure that eBay would halt the auction (according to their current policies)

More info on the late, not-so-great Murkowski bill can be found at Southwestern Bell's page about it. The "original Senate bill" link seems to be kaput, but you can still read the following:

s1618.es.txt

s1618.is.txt

s1618.rfh.txt

s1618.rs.txt

More info on the late, not-so-great Murkowski bill can be found at Southwestern Bell's page about it. The "original Senate bill" link seems to be kaput, but you can still read the following:

s1618.es.txt

s1618.is.txt

s1618.rfh.txt

s1618.rs.txt

More info on the late, not-so-great Murkowski bill can be found at Southwestern Bell's page about it. The "original Senate bill" link seems to be kaput, but you can still read the following:

s1618.es.txt

s1618.is.txt

s1618.rfh.txt

s1618.rs.txt

More info on the late, not-so-great Murkowski bill can be found at Southwestern Bell's page about it. The "original Senate bill" link seems to be kaput, but you can still read the following:

s1618.es.txt

s1618.is.txt

s1618.rfh.txt

s1618.rs.txt

Fair use is covered in Circular 21 (pdf). I found this part quite interesting:

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

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work

OTOH, reading down a little, it appears that comments can safely be reprinted in their entirety without violating the authors copyright--in particular, it states that short stories, which are far more substantial than most posts, can be used in their entirety. The caveat is that this specific example only applies to classroom use (these are the provisions for educational use), but it would seem to imply that shorter works can be reprinted safely. (Of course 'imply' doesn't mean much, legally.)

-jcl