Slashdot Mirror

Do you think there will ever be a Open Source Development Legal Guide similar to this one by Nolo?

BTW, what do you think of Nolo?

NoLo press has an article on this subject.

This might help out; in most states, if there's a restriction on your movements & your behavior, you probably should be getting paid for each and every hour you're on duty.

http://www.nolo.com/encyclopedia/articles/emp/onca ll.html

I hate whining about how unfair contracts are from people who don't bother to negotiate. Do your homework, read your contract, and if you don't like it; don't sign it! It's that simple.

Rather than simply write off these people as being stupid for signing one-sided contracts, could we do something to pursuade managers to be more open to free software development?

I have a better idea. Read-the-friendly-contract. If you are all fired up to save people from themselves, convince them not to sign contracts giving away their right to create software!

These people are stupid for signing one sided contracts. It's a workers market out there and giving up your rights on your own time is stupid. Plain and simple. Read up on it and do your homework!

It is not that hard to negotiate a contract that leaves you free to persue your own interests. With it comes the satisfaction of telling those obnoxious bastards who want you to sign your life away to pound sand.

What if there was a standard contract available, between employers and employees, that spefically gave employees the right to contribute to free software projects so long as it benefits the company they work for?"

There are standard contracts available that protect developers rights. Start with Nolo, from there you can give whatever you like to the FSF.

Marketing Without Advertising: Inspire Customers to Rave About Your Business to Create Lasting Success is your friend!

Be honest with yourself, you are not looking for press you are looking for customers. Focus on current customers and the methods of leading new ones to your "lunatic fringe".

I am the "Eldred" in "Eldred v. Reno." I ought to correct a few misstatements here. Mr Hart says:

Sadly to say, the US Supreme Court just ruled against the case I was supposed to be in [Eldred vs Reno]. . .but at least it was mostly on technical grounds. . .which leaves me possibly to still bring another totally separate case. . .but the lawyers would never let me get a single word into my own case [Hart vs Reno] so I made them take my name off of that case, which then became Eldred vs Reno].

1. It was the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, not the U.S. Supreme Court. See the 2-1 decision under http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno. We are going to appeal the case, eventually to the Supreme Court, and we need your support.
2. Mr Hart was never "supposed to be in" the case. He refused to become a plaintiff when he was asked. He is welcome to get his own attorneys to file another challenge. In fact, a group at Stanford might be looking to get somebody else to file a challenge in another district, but it won't be Eldred or Hart for that one. Let me know if you are interested.
3. "[T]he lawyers would never let me get a single word into" the challenge to the CTEA--meaning the pro bono attorneys discovered that Mr. Hart, although not an attorney himself, wished to tell the lawyers what to do. Mr. Hart, you will soon learn when dealing with him, has his own mind. It so happens that his project is not the only one that is concerned about the public domain, and the attorneys found another plaintiff to replace him.
4. "I made them take my name off of that case"--meaning he refused to go forward with the case unless he personally controlled everything. He has yet to explain what he would have argued differently.

JimCYL says:

1. Mr. Hart is partially correct when he mentions that copyrights run for 95 years as of the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act. In addition to the other two elements Jim mentions, the 95-year term applies to works first published after 1922, renewed, and under copyright in 1998. (This "retrospective" or "retroactive" extension of term is primarily the basis for the dissent in the appeals court decision. It applies to Project Gutenberg as much as the rest of us, because it more or less sets up a dam for the flow of works into the public domain at January 1, 1923. Project Gutenberg for the most part has refrained from reprinting any works first published after 1922. Eldritch Press and some others do copyright research to find out works that were not renewed and so entered the public domain. For further information, see http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/okbooks.htm l as well as the new book, "The Public Domain," by Stephen Fishman, at http://www.nolo.com
2. "Eldred Press"--it has become "Eldritch Press."
3. "The author of a work (or his heirs) can "recapture" his copyright after 35 years by notifying the copyright office of his intent to do so." Unfortunately, the Copyright Term Extension Act did not follow previous copyright acts, and failed to allow this recapturing when it extended term. As Mr. Hart properly notes, renewal is no longer necessary. Consequently, publishers now have many rights that neither previous laws nor the Constitution ever gave them.

DG asks: "If you could pick any 10 currently copyrighted works, and have them placed in the public domain (specifically for inclusion in Project Gutenberg) what would they be?"

It should be noted that not all works in Project Gutenberg are in the public domain. For example, Michael S. Hart retains copyright for some. (BTW, the attempt at copyright notice at the bottom of the head is not proper: (C) is not valid, only a "C" inside a circle, or "Copr." or "Copyright" written out. But, anyway, notice is no longer necessary for copyright, only for collecting attorney fees and damages in cases of infringement, and even then the work must be registered (not necessary for most works online, which are under copyright the instant the expression is fixed).

But if you want to put in your request for books to be scanned, you can do so at the On-Line Books Page at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/in-progress .html#requests

Mr. Hart also says: Actually, more and more of our Etexts are available in more formats, it's just that very often those who reformat them want the be the ONLY places to get those formats, and thus don't share back with us. It's a little sad that way, but we have tried to honor the requests from other Etext sites that want to be the ONLY source for our Etexts in various formats. . .though we disagree with that philosophy. Some day, when I am older and crankier, perhaps I will just raid their sites against their wills for conversions that are non-copyrightable: though these days people even claim copyrights on the most trivial conversions. Someday that older and crankier me may even take them [some are major universities] to court for "misuse of copyright."

Mr. Hart claims to do his own copyright research, but he is not apparently cognizant of current U.S. copyright law. The underlying text of a work in the public domain is in the public domain, no matter if a site such as Eldritch Press claims copyright on the introduction, notes, added punctuation, editorial corrections, layout, and so on--none of which are creative enough for a copyright infringement claim to be asserted against Project Gutenberg. See, for example, "The Public Domain" for more information about what is under copyright and what is in the public domain.

I ought to say that I don't see Project Gutenberg and Eldritch Press as competitors, the way Mr. Hart appears to to. In fact, I have attempted to donate some of my works to Project Gutenberg, only to have Mr. Hart find some excuse to refuse them. So I instead pay for my own web server and publish my own work. I stand behind them and make my own corrections. The format problem that questioners raise to Mr. Hart is fairly irrelevant today, since it is fairly easy to filter texts from ASCII to HTML or back, or to other formats, as long as the tags apply to the structure and not the layout. (Project Gutenberg texts could use some more standardization on what constitutes italic and so on, I agree.)

We "bookpeople" who publish books on the net could use a little help--see the On-Line Books Page at the link above for more information on what you can do, besides becoming a Project Gutenberg volunteer.

We also see ourselves in alliance with all those who treasure freedom--the same freedom to code a program or to read a book--and so we join with those who oppose the DMCA or the NET act or any other attempts to censor the net or make it safe for e-commerce by excluding those such as Project Gutenberg or others of us "bookpeople." Thanks for your support!

I am the "Eldred" in "Eldred v. Reno." I ought to correct a few misstatements here. Mr Hart says:

Sadly to say, the US Supreme Court just ruled against the case I was supposed to be in [Eldred vs Reno]. . .but at least it was mostly on technical grounds. . .which leaves me possibly to still bring another totally separate case. . .but the lawyers would never let me get a single word into my own case [Hart vs Reno] so I made them take my name off of that case, which then became Eldred vs Reno].

1. It was the U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, not the U.S. Supreme Court. See the 2-1 decision under http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/eldredvreno. We are going to appeal the case, eventually to the Supreme Court, and we need your support.
2. Mr Hart was never "supposed to be in" the case. He refused to become a plaintiff when he was asked. He is welcome to get his own attorneys to file another challenge. In fact, a group at Stanford might be looking to get somebody else to file a challenge in another district, but it won't be Eldred or Hart for that one. Let me know if you are interested.
3. "[T]he lawyers would never let me get a single word into" the challenge to the CTEA--meaning the pro bono attorneys discovered that Mr. Hart, although not an attorney himself, wished to tell the lawyers what to do. Mr. Hart, you will soon learn when dealing with him, has his own mind. It so happens that his project is not the only one that is concerned about the public domain, and the attorneys found another plaintiff to replace him.
4. "I made them take my name off of that case"--meaning he refused to go forward with the case unless he personally controlled everything. He has yet to explain what he would have argued differently.

JimCYL says:

1. Mr. Hart is partially correct when he mentions that copyrights run for 95 years as of the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act. In addition to the other two elements Jim mentions, the 95-year term applies to works first published after 1922, renewed, and under copyright in 1998. (This "retrospective" or "retroactive" extension of term is primarily the basis for the dissent in the appeals court decision. It applies to Project Gutenberg as much as the rest of us, because it more or less sets up a dam for the flow of works into the public domain at January 1, 1923. Project Gutenberg for the most part has refrained from reprinting any works first published after 1922. Eldritch Press and some others do copyright research to find out works that were not renewed and so entered the public domain. For further information, see http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/okbooks.htm l as well as the new book, "The Public Domain," by Stephen Fishman, at http://www.nolo.com
2. "Eldred Press"--it has become "Eldritch Press."
3. "The author of a work (or his heirs) can "recapture" his copyright after 35 years by notifying the copyright office of his intent to do so." Unfortunately, the Copyright Term Extension Act did not follow previous copyright acts, and failed to allow this recapturing when it extended term. As Mr. Hart properly notes, renewal is no longer necessary. Consequently, publishers now have many rights that neither previous laws nor the Constitution ever gave them.

DG asks: "If you could pick any 10 currently copyrighted works, and have them placed in the public domain (specifically for inclusion in Project Gutenberg) what would they be?"

It should be noted that not all works in Project Gutenberg are in the public domain. For example, Michael S. Hart retains copyright for some. (BTW, the attempt at copyright notice at the bottom of the head is not proper: (C) is not valid, only a "C" inside a circle, or "Copr." or "Copyright" written out. But, anyway, notice is no longer necessary for copyright, only for collecting attorney fees and damages in cases of infringement, and even then the work must be registered (not necessary for most works online, which are under copyright the instant the expression is fixed).

But if you want to put in your request for books to be scanned, you can do so at the On-Line Books Page at http://digital.library.upenn.edu/books/in-progress .html#requests

Mr. Hart also says: Actually, more and more of our Etexts are available in more formats, it's just that very often those who reformat them want the be the ONLY places to get those formats, and thus don't share back with us. It's a little sad that way, but we have tried to honor the requests from other Etext sites that want to be the ONLY source for our Etexts in various formats. . .though we disagree with that philosophy. Some day, when I am older and crankier, perhaps I will just raid their sites against their wills for conversions that are non-copyrightable: though these days people even claim copyrights on the most trivial conversions. Someday that older and crankier me may even take them [some are major universities] to court for "misuse of copyright."

Mr. Hart claims to do his own copyright research, but he is not apparently cognizant of current U.S. copyright law. The underlying text of a work in the public domain is in the public domain, no matter if a site such as Eldritch Press claims copyright on the introduction, notes, added punctuation, editorial corrections, layout, and so on--none of which are creative enough for a copyright infringement claim to be asserted against Project Gutenberg. See, for example, "The Public Domain" for more information about what is under copyright and what is in the public domain.

I ought to say that I don't see Project Gutenberg and Eldritch Press as competitors, the way Mr. Hart appears to to. In fact, I have attempted to donate some of my works to Project Gutenberg, only to have Mr. Hart find some excuse to refuse them. So I instead pay for my own web server and publish my own work. I stand behind them and make my own corrections. The format problem that questioners raise to Mr. Hart is fairly irrelevant today, since it is fairly easy to filter texts from ASCII to HTML or back, or to other formats, as long as the tags apply to the structure and not the layout. (Project Gutenberg texts could use some more standardization on what constitutes italic and so on, I agree.)

We "bookpeople" who publish books on the net could use a little help--see the On-Line Books Page at the link above for more information on what you can do, besides becoming a Project Gutenberg volunteer.

We also see ourselves in alliance with all those who treasure freedom--the same freedom to code a program or to read a book--and so we join with those who oppose the DMCA or the NET act or any other attempts to censor the net or make it safe for e-commerce by excluding those such as Project Gutenberg or others of us "bookpeople." Thanks for your support!

Given that workplace email has zero expectation of privacy, I would not use it for sensitive personal stuff. Not that public email servers are all that secure, but they'll do for mildly sensitive things like "Your turn to bring the Bundt cake to the next Elders of Zion" meeting.

Anyway, you should give medical office workers some credit for discretion. At least I hope they already know not to give sensitive information to phone receptionists!

__________________

Why don't they do something like patent pollution? Then they could sew all the polluters on the planet for patent infringement. And make a mint on the licensing fees

I swear, every time I start to relax about MS, they go and do something to wind me all over again
[/rant]

Standard Disclosure: IANAL

Excellent tutorial on non-disclosures here, and here

Non-disclosures are different from noncompetes:

Excellent discussions on noncompetes here

Special Note: In some states, including California, noncompete agreements generally can't be enforced against employees. The problem is that because noncompete agreements come in so many shapes and sizes, and because you've got very conflicting societal interests, the courts tend to analyze these things on a case-by-case basis, which means predictability is very low.

There is also this interesting site:

www.breakyournoncompete.com

which has an agreement on the front end.

I am sure there are others out there as well.

The main problem is that this level of blocking goes far beyond the original intent of the RBL. The Blackhole was only supposed to block known current sources of spam. Over the years it has experienced mission creep and now goes after spam accomplices (e.g. affiliated web pages & email boxes) as well as accessories (e.g. email harvesting software). That is too many tasks for a single list!

RBL's original mission is a good idea, and could even be palatable to major backbone providers. For example, imagine if Verizon and UUnet were subscribers to the more-focused version. Millions of people would be better off instantly. Within months, RBL would put itself out of business -- anyone on the list would scramble like mad to get off or else go out of business from lack of traffic.

MAPS has already implemented multiple parallel lists -- RBL, RSS, DUL, etc. It's time to break up the RBL into 3 separate components with appropriately narrow targets.

Nolo's guide to Patent, Copyright, and Trademark.

It's great.
-

So when Microsoft carelessly allowed spies to copy their secrets, they lost the trade secret protection, didn't they?

A trade secret owner can prevent the following groups of people from copying, using and benefiting from its trade secrets or disclosing them to others without permission:

[...]

• people who knowingly obtain trade secrets from people who have no right to disclose them
  
• people who learn about a trade secret by accident or mistake, but had reason to know that the information was a protected trade secret,

[...]

There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. [...]

1.Estate tax: the only people who actually pay any estate taxes in this country are the not-quite-so-rich people who can't afford to hire an army of lawyers and accountants to package their millions into the plnetiful loopholes in our ludicrous tax scheme. The really-really-really-rich don't pay a dime as far as I can tell.

Where do we start. It doesn't require an army of lawyers to set up an estate plan that doubles your exemptions. And if you get to that level of resources, the people who can do that for you will find you. For that matter, everything you need can be obtained from Nolo Press.

Next, charitable foundations can be set up easily for those whose estates significantly exceed the limits. Trust funds can be set up so that heirs pay few taxes on what is getting inherited. Talk to your accountant about it. If you don't have an accountant, you probably don't have enough money to make estate taxes an issue.

And while we're on the subject, family farms and ranches are getting sold off because the kids just plain aren't interested in farming or ranching. Even a recent poster with a family farm admits as much.

Really, the only people with (relatively) small estates that pay significant taxes are those who do not avail themselves of the law.

In the interest of staying on topic, the rest of this post has been deleted.

Isn't there a fair use law which basically states that as long as you give credit whre it is due you are well within your rights to quote?

I think this will help.

US Code: Title 17, Section 107
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

If that doesn't some it up for you, try nolo.com's Fair Use Guide.

Isn't there a fair use law which basically states that as long as you give credit whre it is due you are well within your rights to quote?

I think this will help.

US Code: Title 17, Section 107
Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

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

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

If that doesn't some it up for you, try nolo.com's Fair Use Guide.

Have them start by reading How to Get a Green Card: Legal Ways to Stay in the U.S.A.

The second book on your list should be U.S. Immigration Made Easy

Some others that my useful in some situations:

Ho w to Become a United States Citizen

Nolo press provides step by step guides to everyday legal tasks. Any topic flooded with posts stating IANAL should be repeatedly referred to Nolo.

Have them start by reading How to Get a Green Card: Legal Ways to Stay in the U.S.A.

The second book on your list should be U.S. Immigration Made Easy

Some others that my useful in some situations:

Ho w to Become a United States Citizen

Nolo press provides step by step guides to everyday legal tasks. Any topic flooded with posts stating IANAL should be repeatedly referred to Nolo.

Have them start by reading How to Get a Green Card: Legal Ways to Stay in the U.S.A.

The second book on your list should be U.S. Immigration Made Easy

Some others that my useful in some situations:

Ho w to Become a United States Citizen

Nolo press provides step by step guides to everyday legal tasks. Any topic flooded with posts stating IANAL should be repeatedly referred to Nolo.

IANAL.

Let's be honest, most of the population of Slashdot is not either; despite pretenses to the contrary. Even if someone lurking out there happened to pass the bar, they are not going to give you free legal advice, nor will they do it for karma. So what is some poor software author to do?

Kick the legal system in the crotch and handle it yourself with the help of Nolo Press.

Start with the free chapter from Copyright Your Software .

After that you may want a look into the various legal tangles a poor techie can get caught up with Software Development: A Legal Guide . This too has a sample chapter.

I have not looked in any exhausting detail but I do not see any specific license being granted to someone on download; other then saying they may "use" it free. It would be my guess that you still would hold the copyright on the software, barring entaglments with scrabble, and that you would have these clone bastards by the balls if they used your code.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Slashdot

IANAL.

Let's be honest, most of the population of Slashdot is not either; despite pretenses to the contrary. Even if someone lurking out there happened to pass the bar, they are not going to give you free legal advice, nor will they do it for karma. So what is some poor software author to do?

Kick the legal system in the crotch and handle it yourself with the help of Nolo Press.

Start with the free chapter from Copyright Your Software .

After that you may want a look into the various legal tangles a poor techie can get caught up with Software Development: A Legal Guide . This too has a sample chapter.

I have not looked in any exhausting detail but I do not see any specific license being granted to someone on download; other then saying they may "use" it free. It would be my guess that you still would hold the copyright on the software, barring entaglments with scrabble, and that you would have these clone bastards by the balls if they used your code.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Slashdot

IANAL.

Let's be honest, most of the population of Slashdot is not either; despite pretenses to the contrary. Even if someone lurking out there happened to pass the bar, they are not going to give you free legal advice, nor will they do it for karma. So what is some poor software author to do?

Kick the legal system in the crotch and handle it yourself with the help of Nolo Press.

Start with the free chapter from Copyright Your Software .

After that you may want a look into the various legal tangles a poor techie can get caught up with Software Development: A Legal Guide . This too has a sample chapter.

I have not looked in any exhausting detail but I do not see any specific license being granted to someone on download; other then saying they may "use" it free. It would be my guess that you still would hold the copyright on the software, barring entaglments with scrabble, and that you would have these clone bastards by the balls if they used your code.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Slashdot

IANAL.

Let's be honest, most of the population of Slashdot is not either; despite pretenses to the contrary. Even if someone lurking out there happened to pass the bar, they are not going to give you free legal advice, nor will they do it for karma. So what is some poor software author to do?

Kick the legal system in the crotch and handle it yourself with the help of Nolo Press.

Start with the free chapter from Copyright Your Software .

After that you may want a look into the various legal tangles a poor techie can get caught up with Software Development: A Legal Guide . This too has a sample chapter.

I have not looked in any exhausting detail but I do not see any specific license being granted to someone on download; other then saying they may "use" it free. It would be my guess that you still would hold the copyright on the software, barring entaglments with scrabble, and that you would have these clone bastards by the balls if they used your code.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on Slashdot

...Amazon's efforts to copyright software...

Software has been copyrightable pretty much as long as it's been around, and I haven't heard anyone complaining about it, since a copyright on software only protects the particularly code that's copyrighted.

Sure, lots of /.ers don't know the difference between patents and copyright, but that doesn't make it excusable for an alleged journalist writing a feature article. Nolo.com has a good primer here.

It might be too late, but take a look at this article on the legal issues surrounding engagement rings. In many states, you have the right to get the ring back.

Nah, at $95 a page and $240 for a subscription, I'll pass on it. Furthermore, it's not searchable (as far as I know). I should also qualify my request with affordable. For about the same amount of money I could use something like this, and submit it to the patent office.

With their ongoing legal woes, Microsoft should've named it the nolo chip.

"The patent right isn't an absolute monopoly for the period that is in force.... It can be lost if:
[a few other reasons...]

• the patent owner engages in certain defined types of illegal conduct, that is, commits antitrust or other violations connected with the patent;..."

Downmoderate me as redundant, but I'll keep posting it until people learn.

See http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct31.html
and http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct11.html.

Downmoderate me as redundant, but I'll keep posting it until people learn.

See http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct31.html
and http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct11.html.

See http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct31.html
and http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct11.html.

See http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct31.html
and http://www.nolo.com/encycloped ia/faqs/pct/pct11.html.

Copying a song from a friend's CD is not allowed by Fair Use Law. Fair Use Law (US Code: Title 17, Section 107) specifically covers for the most part excerpting for the purposes of criticism, and classroom use. To wit:

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.

However, the Audio Home Recording Act (of, I believe, 1991) guarantees you the right to make audio copies of things you own for your own use. It does NOT grant you the right to make copies of music that your friends have purchased.

According to this article there were some significant changes made in 1998. Notably, "Rrestaurants and bars under 3,750 square feet or retail establishments under 2,000 square feet who play the radio or television in their establishments won't have to pay [royalty] fees." (Brackets and contents are mine.) That doesn't affect you as much as Title III of the DMCA which says that you can run code on someone else's computer, even if it is not in their posession at the time, with their permission, regardless of any licensing agreements. However, the article (URL above) doesn't say anything about the copying of audio at all.

Finally, see this excerpt from yet another article on www.nolo.com:

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

Copying a song from a friend's CD is not allowed by Fair Use Law. Fair Use Law (US Code: Title 17, Section 107) specifically covers for the most part excerpting for the purposes of criticism, and classroom use. To wit:

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.

However, the Audio Home Recording Act (of, I believe, 1991) guarantees you the right to make audio copies of things you own for your own use. It does NOT grant you the right to make copies of music that your friends have purchased.

According to this article there were some significant changes made in 1998. Notably, "Rrestaurants and bars under 3,750 square feet or retail establishments under 2,000 square feet who play the radio or television in their establishments won't have to pay [royalty] fees." (Brackets and contents are mine.) That doesn't affect you as much as Title III of the DMCA which says that you can run code on someone else's computer, even if it is not in their posession at the time, with their permission, regardless of any licensing agreements. However, the article (URL above) doesn't say anything about the copying of audio at all.

Finally, see this excerpt from yet another article on www.nolo.com:

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

Copying a song from a friend's CD is not allowed by Fair Use Law. Fair Use Law (US Code: Title 17, Section 107) specifically covers for the most part excerpting for the purposes of criticism, and classroom use. To wit:

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.

However, the Audio Home Recording Act (of, I believe, 1991) guarantees you the right to make audio copies of things you own for your own use. It does NOT grant you the right to make copies of music that your friends have purchased.

According to this article there were some significant changes made in 1998. Notably, "Rrestaurants and bars under 3,750 square feet or retail establishments under 2,000 square feet who play the radio or television in their establishments won't have to pay [royalty] fees." (Brackets and contents are mine.) That doesn't affect you as much as Title III of the DMCA which says that you can run code on someone else's computer, even if it is not in their posession at the time, with their permission, regardless of any licensing agreements. However, the article (URL above) doesn't say anything about the copying of audio at all.

Finally, see this excerpt from yet another article on www.nolo.com:

All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047.

Here is a good guide to "fair use" for the uninformed.

From the legal dictionary at Nolo.com:

An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

Ok, so if libel is a civil wrong, then the authorities really don't have much to say about the issue. The people who were offended need to sue the teenager, no?

Also, there are a lot of conditions in libel cases. Namely, the offended party has to prove that the statements are false, and furthermore that the offender *knew* that they were false, or at least that he never cared whether they were true or not. Secondly, the statements are libelous only if the offended prty can prove that the statements have ruined their reputation or standing in the community. This reminds me of the Falwell vs. Larry Flynt case -- Flynt's statements were so unbelievable and false that no reasonable person would think they were true, therefore, they weren't libelous.

This is all my speculation, as IANAL. Help me out if I'm wrong about anything.

You do have to show a "use in commmerce", but the requirements for that are fairly minimal. Read the Nolo Press book on trademarks for the rules. A banner ad or an affiliate link to something probably qualifies, as long as there's potential income.

Even if your trademark application is rejected for the "principal register", which means you can keep others from using it, you can usually then file to put it on the "secondary register", which means nobody can keep you from using it. You still get to use "tm", and it's a trademark for ICANN domain dispute purposes.

Uses That Are Generally Fair Uses Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:

• Criticism and comment--for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment.
• News reporting--for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report.
• Research and scholarship--for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations.
• Nonprofit educational uses--for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use.
• Parody--that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way.

• Seems like fair use under the parody clause but we all know that he with the lawyer and the money wins. Call the ACLU.

Here's the dictonary entry under, filed under with predjudice.

It took me a few tries to find it, too.

--

• How do you find your customers?
  Since you're starting a Web-based business, it is tempting to think of this as "how will our customers find us?" (ie, 'I need higher rankings in the search engines!'), but this is not the same. You need a coherent, complete, and sustainable strategy for generating a steady stream of new, paying customers. The inputs to this process must be under your control, so that you can scale them up (or down) as your business demands.
  
• How do you get paid?
  You need to be able to articulate what exactly you will be paid for, and by whom. You also need a specific pricing model, as well as how customers will pay you (ie, credit cards, POs, pay in advance of services).
  

Here are the other one-liners that I'm carrying around in my head for when I start my next business:

• You need real capital.
  Like maybe $1 million in the company bank account, and another million standing by. An underfunded business will fail because it won't be able to spend money fast enough to get to critical mass.
• If you don't have capital, this is just a hobby, and that's OK.
• Have a partner; there's a lot of work to do.
• Make a plan for dealing with the fact that you'll never see your significant other.
  Knock off work at 5 PM every Saturday, and go out for a date. (This 'date' lasts until AFTER you've had coffee Sunday morning.)
• Make 'shareholder' agreements the same day you form the business.
  What happens if a major shareholder dies? By default, their spouse gets full voting control of their stock...is that what you want? Be deliberate.
• Keep your fixed costs (rent, internet bills) low.
• Some particular thing makes your business special; offload and outsource everything else.
  Use ADP for payroll.
  Use an outside design firm.
  Use Quickbooks or Peachtree for accounting, whatever your accountant recommends.
  Find a lawyer you can talk to, preferably one who's a bit of geek.
  Ditto a patent attorney.
• Buy every relevant book from NOLO Press, everything written by Guy Kawasaki, and For Entrepeneurs Only. Read all.
• If you're going to be > 10 people, the first person to hire is the person who will hire the rest.
  Hire someone who's 'built a team' before.
• Hire veterans of other real-world startups, not newbies excited about the idea of startups.
  The vets understand, and have wisdom to offer (doesn't matter whether their old ventures succeded or failed).
• "You will hit your sales projections -- a year later than you planned." -Sam Farber, founder of COPCO and OXO/Good Grips.
  Did I mention that you need real capital?

Your time is precious -- be very, very careful how you invest it.

-Mark Kriegsman
Founder, ClearWay Technologies

There seems to much FUD floating around about patents, so I thought I'd toss in a few extra facts. I've filed for ten patents for my previous employer, and keep a close eye on the patent world.

1. $25K/patent. Patents are not cheap. It costs about $10K-$15K to disclose, draft, file, and sheppard a patent to conclusion. Add to this another $10K of time for people in your group to disclose and review the patent. Now, some would view getting ten patents at $25K each better than one engineer at $250K (loaded). Some patent firms are much better than others; mail me for some recommendations.

2. Don't patent it yourself.You can learn a lot from the Patent It Yourself book, but you probably won't make a good patent. You can save money by preparing for the disclosure and by drawing your own diagrams. Never opt for the various 'individual inventor' reduced fees; the clauses bite and kill your patent. Also, there are a bunch of rip-off places that will sign any NDA and talk about 'marketting'.

3. No patents = No Silicon Valley. Silicon valley exists because of patents. Otherwise, MS or Sun would keep a group of engineers on standby just to clone every interesting piece of software. Patents provide reasonable barriers to entry for small firms. Not everything is a matter of time to market.

4. Silly Patents. There are many silly patents out there, and more being filed all the time. The problem is the breakdown at the US Patent Office, mostly by the previous administrator. For a while, patent agents were being reviewed by how many patents they awarded, and so they awarded a lot of trash.

5. Defense. In software, patents are defensive for the most part. Cisco, for example, has publically promised never to sue. Patents keep others from quickly ripping you off, and from others trying to enforce patents against you. Xerox is the notable exception; the idiots keep thinking they can raise money from their portfolio. Remember, nothing a law firm does can keep you from being sued; it can only keep you from losing.

6. Solutions. Thanks to my favorite patent attorney for suggesting this one. The most onerous problem for the patent office and patent attorneys is finding the prior art. The community can go a long way towards solving this problem by coming up with a good, searchable database of prior art. While the patents themselves are searchable at IBM's patent site, prior art is still mostly a matter of luck and money. Only small steps have been taken so far, though there is a rumor that the old Apple research notebooks from the 70's are posted somewhere.

There's a lot more about patents. It's a religious issue, even among patent attorneys. Most feel that the patent office does an inconsistent job, and all patent attorneys I know of cheered when gene sequence patents were tossed.

There seems to much FUD floating around this topic, so I thought I'd toss in a few facts. I've filed for ten patents for my previous employer, and keep a close eye on the patent world.

1. $25K/patent. Patents are not cheap. It costs about $10K-$15K to disclose, draft, file, and sheppard a patent to conclusion. Add to this another $10K of time for people in your group to disclose and review the patent. Now, some would view getting ten patents at $25K each better than one engineer at $250K (loaded). Some patent firms are much better than others; mail me for some recommendations.

2. Don't patent it yourself.You can learn a lot from the Patent It Yourself book, but you probably won't make a good patent. You can save money by preparing for the disclosure and by drawing your own diagrams. Never opt for the various 'individual inventor' reduced fees; the clauses bite and kill your patent. Also, there are a bunch of rip-off places that will sign any NDA and talk about 'marketting'.

3. No patents = No Silicon Valley. Silicon valley exists because of patents. Otherwise, MS or Sun would keep a group of engineers on standby just to clone every interesting piece of software. Patents provide reasonable barriers to entry for small firms. Not everything is a matter of time to market.

4. Silly Patents. There are many silly patents out there, and more being filed all the time. The problem is the breakdown at the US Patent Office, mostly by the previous administrator. For a while, patent agents were being reviewed by how many patents they awarded, and so they awarded a lot of trash.

5. Defense. In software, patents are defensive for the most part. Cisco, for example, has publically promised never to sue. Patents keep others from quickly ripping you off, and from others trying to enforce patents against you. Xerox is the notable exception; the idiots keep thinking they can raise money from their portfolio. Remember, nothing a law firm does can keep you from being sued; it can only keep you from losing.

There's a lot more about patents. It's a religious issue, even among patent attorneys. Most feel that the patent office does an inconsistent job, and all patent attorneys I know of cheered when gene sequence patents were tossed.

What happens if there are multiple applications for the same
invention?

If a patent examiner discovers that another pending application involves the
same invention, and that both inventions appear to qualify for a patent, the
patent examiner will declare that a conflict (called an interference) exists
between the two applications. In that event, a hearing is held to determine who
is entitled to the patent.

Who gets the patent depends on such variables as who first conceived the
invention and worked on it diligently, who first built and tested the invention
and who filed the first provisional or regular patent application. Because of the
possibility of a patent interference, it is wise to document all invention-related
activities in a signed and witnessed inventor's notebook so that you can later
prove the date the invention was conceived and the steps you took to build and
test the invention or quickly file a patent application.

If y'all take the time, you'll learn that trademarks don't need to be registered, and in fact cannot be registered until they've been in use and established. Actually, only a fraction of trademarks are registered. An ordinary, unregistered trademark is indicated by the little "TM" symbol, while a registered trademark is indicated by the "R in a circle".

IANAL, thank Heavens.

The resources are out there to learn the difference. It would make your arguments more persuasive if you would at least argue about the right legal rules governing the issues at hand.

In particular, see:

Findlaw's Trademark Page

Nolo Press's Trademark Page

Fortunately, there are many attorneys who know a lot about the subject who feel as pissed about trademark abuse and are actually doing something about it. Lets all hope they are successful -- the Slashdot community should help where possible!

There's a similar case already going on in Texas, where they've tried to prevent Nolo (which publishes legal self-help books) from selling their books and software in Texas.

You can see the whole sordid story on their website at Texas vs. Nolo

Folks, the fight of legal self-help against Texas is *OLD* news. Nolo Press has been under attack since April 1998! See Texas vs. Nolo Press for details.

Henry@Schmitt.org