Slashdot Mirror

Sure there are a small set of notes, and only so many ways you can arange any two notes in any tempo. After two notes, it is all in the arrangement, and composition.

The Yes! We have no bananas! case set the precedent that four notes is enough to get a songwriter sued in the United States. Given that there are only about 30,000 ways to combine four notes in the Western music theory (reply if you want a more detailed explanation of the math), it appears that the only reason songwriters haven't exhausted the melody space is that the big "all your right are belong to us" publishers have entered into cross-licensing agreements with one another. This is part of why you should write your legislators and request a repeal of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

I'd love to see the opposing lawyer shoot that argument down by pointing out that with computers and the Internet, anyone can "keep a work in distribution", and that copyrights are typically the main thing keeping works out of distribution -- not the other way around.

Indeed, you are right. Read the briefs online at http://eldred.openlaw.org

Lastly, you rip an mp3 that is music you created to put up on mp3.com. I download it. If it has a copyright on it, and I didn't rip it, how do I play it?

"This europop remix of the Tetris theme has been arranged, performed, and ripped by Gregory Chekalin, who has authorized it for world distribution. This licence has been digitally signed by Gregory Chekalin." The SDMiPod verifies the signature, checks the license, and plays the MP3 file.

If it doesn't have a copyright on it

Huh? Doesn't every work have a copyright on it from creation? Nothing expires into PD anymore.

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 11:27:11 -0500
To: openlaw-announce [at-sign] eon.law.harvard.edu
From: Wendy Seltzer
Subject: [openlaw] Eldred v. Ashcroft to the Supreme Court

From Lawrence Lessig and the Openlaw team:

We are extremely pleased to report that the Supreme Court has today granted cert in Eldred v. Ashcroft. After the case was listed on the court's conference calendar 4 weeks in a row, the court decided to hear the full range of issues in the appeal.

We have gotten this far because of the extraordinary work and support of many many people -- especially the plaintiffs in this case, but also the extraordinary pro bono work of the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.

We would also not be here but for the extraordinary help of a wide range of law professors and volunteer lawyers, who have used the Openlaw process to make our work better. Those professors signed the amicus briefs in this case, as did the Eagle Forum and Cato Institute.

There's just one more step in this process of reversing Congress' mistake: After getting 0 votes in the District Court, 2 votes in the Court of Appeals, and now at least 4 votes in the Supreme Court to hear the case, we now need just 5 to prevail.

Thank you for your continued interest and support. Read more background on the case and join the Openlaw process at http://eldred.openlaw.org/

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

By no means does Creative Commons wish to give up the fight to extend the public domain by limiting copyright term.

The supporters of infinite copyright term argue that works have some value forever and thus should be protected. We don't actually believe this argument--but if the works have value then there is some merit in granting tax deductions for donating them to the public. That may be another campaign by Creative Commons--stay tuned.

Lessig's and my case against the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is on appeal to the Supreme Court--see http://openlaw.org/eldredvreno

You think that this is an original idea?

If SlashdotLaw.org sounds cool, you should check out OpenLaw. From what I can see, they're doing pretty much the same thing that our friend the Anonymous Slashdot Troll suggested. They've got links to information and discussion boards for conversing on the details of active lawsuits.

ph33r mY 3lit3 l4w sK1llZ!

[Moderators: Think twice about that "Overrated" option, this post is 100% on-topic.]

While I can't offer much in the way of ideas, what I would like to do is thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. For some time now, I have been planning to start a potentially extremely contraversial, slashdot style (probably even slashcode) weblog. One thing that's been stopping me is the cost of doing it out of my pocket. I had been toying with the idea of setting it up at my university, but seeing the problems you've had - well let's just say that that part of the idea is now officially scrapped.

Several people have mentioned the ACLU as a possibility... I remember coming across a group called OpenLaw once upon a time (I think here on Slashdot). They seem to help people in similar situations to yours - maybe it's another avenue to explore.

Best of luck - and keep speaking freely!

I wouldn't claim to know what the current social assumption is, but in the US, material created after 1/1/78 is automatically protected by copyright, by default. People mark material anyway to be more sure that notice has been provided if it came to a dispute.

Also, take a look at some related activity - Copyright's Commons at Harvard Law. Interesting parallels with their [cc] "counter-copyright" device. These appear to be the same folks doing the opencode and openlaw initiatives.

And they've got a bunch of stuff on the Eldred v Reno. copyright extension argument, and the old Jack Valenti v Lawrence Lessig debate as an added bonus :-)

Sigh. How many times does it need to be said that 99.999% of users don't know or care that the tool they use is "open"?

Talk about missing the point. Nobody is claiming that open-source will become popular because people think "wow, it's open, so it must be good!". The idea behind open-source software is that being open brings certain benefits, and those benefits attract users.

As of now, most "open" tools suck big time compared to "closed" from the user's perspective, and this doesn't seem to change too fast.

What? This only makes sense if you include every single crappy little program that's released under an open license. Anyone can release open software. You could just as easily say that most sportsmen are incredibly unfit, because it makes sense if you count everybody who has booted a football about once in their life.

How about you just count the maintained, useful projects instead? Things like Apache, BIND, KDE, etc.

Now, users might care if "open" = "free" as opposed to hundreds of dollars for M$, but according to some evangelists it's not the case either, and as "open" market matures I expect more companies hide behind this principle to charge money to make profit.

Not sure what you are getting at here. Are you claiming that because RMS says that Free software isn't about price, and that it's OK to charge for Free software, that companies can use this as a leverage to charge hundreds of dollars for things, and that the end-users will still get shafted? You do realise that the person who buys it is free to sell copies at half-price?

Speaking more generally, why would any real professional who spent years mastering their art want to give it away is beyond me.

Just because you can't understand it, it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Or are you claiming that anybody involved in OSS isn't a "real professional"?

I don't see lawyers or doctors offering their often much needed help for free

Freedom is less useful in these professions. Can somebody take a prescription, and rewrite it so that you get better more quickly? Of course not. By the way, have you checked out openlaw.org yet?

You suggest that open source models work best where there is a group of "technically talented users" -- and it seems to me the legal community could put its shared technical skill to work jointly on a case that attracted its collective attention.

In challenging the copyright term extension, the openlaw strategy works against the collective action problem of this type of suit. While it would be difficult for any of the individuals harmed by the Act to fight against the mega media interests, we open a forum where they can combine smaller-scale contributions. Here, readers of the Eldritch Press and singers in the church choir can fight against the Disneys.

At times, the lawyers on the brief have to take authorial/editorial control, but we imagine they will have a richer stew from which to draw. We'll see where it takes us!

--Wendy
http://www.openlaw.org/