Slashdot Mirror

State University systems can own thousands of acres of land not actually being used as campus land. A large portion of the University of Texas's income comes from leases operated on UT-owned land. In fact, there is an entire entity solely dedicated to handing this for UT: University Lands. It's unlikely that Pennsylvania is looking to lease Campus Commons areas. More likely they are simply making it possible for unused land owned by the system to bring in funds for the State University System.

Strictly ignorant lay opinion here, but I'd think it would be OK according to the informal fair-use guidelines widely referenced by universities and libraries, e.g. the University of Texas system.

"Factor 1: Character of the use:" seems to me that in their first column it's nonprofit, and arguably educational. In the middle, it's criticism, commentary, and most bodaciously "transformative."

"Factor 2: What is the nature of the work to be used?": Imaginative and published, somewhere in the "doesn't tip the balance" part of University of Texas' scale.

"Factor 3: How much of the work will you use?" Only a small amount is being used for each work. I'm not sure what the total amount used from any individual work is, but it's tiny.

"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?" I find it impossible to believe that a person with a copy of this video would show it to their kids in lieu of any of the Disney films from which the clips were taken. And I don't believe the Disney organization is currently making any money at all licensing clips for use in videos like this one.

Because I've had exactly the opposite experience here in the US. Most universities that I've been a part of (undergrad, masters, doctoral) do NOT require faculty or students to sign over their copyrights except in limited circumstances. Definitely the case for grad work. Look at the University of Texas, for example.

http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/intellectualProperty/w howns.htm

# It permits faculty ownership of scholarly, artistic, literary, musical and educational materials within the author's field of expertise.

# If the University wants to use such a work, to recover expenses of its creation and/or share in royalties if the work is commercialized, it should establish standard University rights that apply to such works or negotiate its rights in a contract with the faculty author.

And UT does not require students to sign over their work- even as student employees creating scholarly materials. They might have them sign something like a nonexclusive license to continue to use the material, but I haven't run into anything particularly onerous.

That's completely different. Rulings on claims of infringement take into account ALL of the following:

• The nature of the copyrighted work---is it a creative work such as fiction or music, or is it a non-fiction work such as a news report, or is it a collection of raw facts such as a telephone book?
• The amount of the copied material relative to the original work as a whole---is it a tiny piece or is it a large chunk of the work?
• The originality/creativitiy of the new work---is it a mere compilation or is it a new creative art form?
• The intended use/audience of the resulting work---was it created for profit or for scholarly research? Is the benefit of broad dissemination of the material ?

The Beastie Boys album is neither scholarly nor of significant public benefit. It is not copying from a factual work. Thus, even if that Wikipedia entry is correct in its legal assessment of the album in question (it probably is not, but I haven't heard the album, so I can't be sure), it still does not apply to this situation.

For more information, the University of Texas has a web page that explains this quite well. The Wikipedia article on Fair Use (last I checked) is also excellent, though IMHO, the University of Texas page presents most of the same information much more concisely and understandably.

Disclaimer: IANAL, but I am schooled in communications law.

You own the physical book. You can do what you want with it... including tearing out pages

You might think so but you would be wrong. There have been a few cases in which doing exactly that - tearing the pages out of a book - and reselling the pages was deemed a copyright violation.

One guy was buying books of art by Patrick Nagel (you know those famous acrylics of semi-naked semi-asian hot-chicks) and mounting the pages on some kind of framing and then selling that. No copying made. He lost in court due to it being ruled a "derivative work" - there are a couple of other similar cases like this one that involved similar practices.

Note that are number of well respected jurists who think that those rulings are bad law, but they still establish precedent in their districts.

I'm guessing you have already considered the relevant University of Texas System polices, the Office of General Council Ethics Standards, and the ITS Policies. Sorry, I work for another Texas university. :-) Universities tend to be generous and tolerant of a personal computer on their network so long as it does not interfere with your work, does not violate any laws or policies, and does not interfere in any way with the network or other computing systems.

With that in mind, know that you and only you are responsible for the security of your computer and that you will be held responsible for any undesireable activity coming from your computer. If someone were to manage to compromise your computer and then attempt to compromise other university systems, you will at least be held responsible for not securing your own system, if not held responsible for anything coming from your computer -- or through it. If you are quite certain that you can keep your computer secure, then by all means run your own server and learn as much as possible. It's best not to experiment with production university systems. Besides, one could argue that using university-owned systems for your own purposes is a violation of the ethics policy. However, using your personal computer on the university network is no different than any student using a laptop.

I'm guessing you have already considered the relevant University of Texas System polices, the Office of General Council Ethics Standards, and the ITS Policies. Sorry, I work for another Texas university. :-) Universities tend to be generous and tolerant of a personal computer on their network so long as it does not interfere with your work, does not violate any laws or policies, and does not interfere in any way with the network or other computing systems.

With that in mind, know that you and only you are responsible for the security of your computer and that you will be held responsible for any undesireable activity coming from your computer. If someone were to manage to compromise your computer and then attempt to compromise other university systems, you will at least be held responsible for not securing your own system, if not held responsible for anything coming from your computer -- or through it. If you are quite certain that you can keep your computer secure, then by all means run your own server and learn as much as possible. It's best not to experiment with production university systems. Besides, one could argue that using university-owned systems for your own purposes is a violation of the ethics policy. However, using your personal computer on the university network is no different than any student using a laptop.

Despite what has been said, your (potential) revenue loss is only one factor out of many in deciding whether a use of copyrighted material can be deemed fair use. I will happily come up with many examples if you would like.

One quick example can be found here.

No, it's not. You grant a license to a copyrighted work - or a patented work, or a trade secret, or any other kind of IP - by means of a contract.

See this link for a typical license - this one is in common use by the University of Texas. Note the title - "SAMPLE COPYRIGHT LICENSE AGREEMENT" - and that the terms of the instrument are purely contractual in nature.

If you're so certain that a license is a distinct legal instrument from a contract, then go find an example of it. Or find a statement on a law-related website indicating this. Or find a court opinion, or a comment in the Restatement and Uniform Commercial Code, differentiating "license" from "contract." In other words, put up or shut up - don't just keep repeating your misconception.

Blah blah blah, copyright doesn't cover use, blah blah blah.

Your vitriol must be clouding your reading comprehension skills.

I didn't write that copyright covers "use." I wrote that you no longer have permission over the software. Violation of the license negates the license, and also negates the licensor's consent to your possession of a copy. Hence, the copy in your possession becomes unauthorized, and you are in violation of the licensor's copyright.

- David Stein

As Dr. Evil has outlined, if precautions are not taken to make it clear that a particular entity does not want reproduction of their website, then by right of standard excepted practice, the website is public domain.
Additionally, my understanding of copyrights, is that works of art of some type are automatically copyrighted material. This includes images, code, written works.

OK, now we're all in trouble, I did a little research.
Here is the likely reason there is not a copyright for the material on this website:
"1. Is the work protected?

Copyright does not protect, this Policy does not apply to, and anyone may freely use*:

* Works that lack originality
o logical, comprehensive compilations (like the phone book)
o unoriginal reprints of public domain works
* Works in the public domain
* Freeware (not shareware, but really, expressly, available free of restrictions-ware -- this may be protected by law, but the author has chosen to make it available without any restrictions)
* US Government works
* Facts
* Ideas, processes, methods, and systems described in copyrighted works"(reference: The University of Texas System)

Listing of information, from my understanding, does not grant a copywright to the entity listing the information.

One additional note: Libraries are free to copy and reproduce copyrighted material within certain bounds. I believe the internet archive should legally be considered a library of webpages.

Who will own the content that is typed in the laptop. The school can claim they own the laptops. Unlike a paper notebook, that is mine and it would take a court order to look in it. Plus, it is not like mail, which is even more gaurded. I can see relationships between people breaking down as everyone is worried about saying the wrong thing.

Your homework (and the teacher's lesson plans for that matter) can be classified as work-for-hire and the school could claim copyright on anything you did for a class. I've never heard of a school doing this though!

More info:

• Who Owns What?
• K-12 PRIMER ABOUT COPYRIGHT LAW

The second link says you must sign a work-for-hire agreement before your work can be classified as work-for-hire, but as with all things copyright, see a lawyer! :-)

Yes, I glossed over public performance rights, and copyright law is...subtle when it comes to what constitutes a public performance. However, it really isn't relevant to this discussion, as none of the library services mentioned involved public performance. If it would make you happier, I retract the sentence in the way that it was formerly stated, and rephrase as following:

Libraries are not (generally) making copies of their matierials, nor holding public performances of copyrighted works, so they cannot be in violation of copyright law.

BTW, a fairly nice FAQ about public performance rights can be found here: http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/m ono3.htm

Yes, I think your right (see below)

Fair Use Rules of Thumb
from http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/c opypol2.htm

UT System has established Rules of Thumb for the following uses of copyrighted works:

Coursepacks
Distance learning (performing others' works for distance learners)
Image archives (like the Art History slide collection)
Multimedia works (incorporating others' works in a multimedia work)
Music
Research copies
Reserves
Try to stay within the Rules of Thumb. Interpret them conservatively. If you need to make a more extensive use of another's work than suggested by the appropriate Rule of Thumb, or if there isn't an appropriate Rule of Thumb, use the four factor fair use test to determine whether

The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

The distinction comes down to "fair use", which is a pretty confusing concept. See here:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/c opypol2.htm

If you apply the four factor test to P2P, where
the use is mostly personal versus commercial, the fair use rights seem to weigh in on the side of the user. What the PearPC guys are doing is clearly commercial, and the fair use rights weigh in on the side of the copyright owner and the GPL outlines what rights are granted by the owner.

Just my two cents....

There's a pretty good argument to be made that you can't just sign away your fair use rights, anymore than Bill Gates can cause you to become his indentured servant via the terms of a shrinkwrapped EULA (Dilbert notwithstanding).

altering a copyrighted work

RTFA. They aren't "altering" the work, to do that they'd have to be changing it, right?

At worst, using five seconds from a copyrighted work easily falls under fair use, especially as there is a parody / criticism edge to some of what he appears to be doing.

You can no more "disclaim" your right to own property than you can "disclaim" your right to be alive
There is precidence to signing away your rights to intellectual property that you create.
When you work for a company in an engineering/scientist capacity, you typically sign paperwork stating that all inventions, ideas, derived from your work is the property of the company. Also, work for hire situations typically have you sign away rights to the property before you have created it.

And look at counternotices on: this page

There is a formal procedure that ISPs follow, and considerable protection for both the copyright owner and the page owner.

You are contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that it is "impossible to make any blanket statement as to what is and is not fair use" and on the other hand you claim that you can check via a simple pass/fail evaluation of the four aspect fair use analysis (clearly showing that hyou misunderstood that the 4-point fair use analysis really results only in a guideline as to which side the fair use vs. not fair use balance MIGHT be tipped and not an ultimate decision).

But this is Slashdot, it's okay to contradict yourself...

Advanced Encode Decode Tools allows you to convert files to/from wma, mp3, ogg, wav, ac3, vob. It will also remove DRM restrictions on WMA files when converting to mp3/ogg. It's $30, but quite a bit simpler than what you're suggesting. :)

IANAL(YYY), but I don't think the legality (or lack thereof) of file conversion technology is as blatantly illegal as you think. Fair Use of copyrighted materials is still a pretty shady area of the law, but it's not completly gone yet. I use the AEDT to convert DRM-ized WMA files from Napster in to MP3s so I can play them in iTunes (my preferred media player). I'm not sharing the files or reselling them or anything. Just trying to use the software that fits me the best. Does this automatically make me a criminal, or a good consumer because I didn't use a free P2P system to get the files?

Nothing hampers a programmer's creativity as much as a compiler.

Oh come on, Slashdotters. Don't mod up as Insightful a post that none of you could possible know to be true. It may SOUND insightful, but linuxislandsucks has clearly never taken a law class in his life.

People you forget Fair Use only applies if you do not in any way make money off of the copy..


You either made this up in your head or you were severely deceived by someone else who has also not taken a law class.

Here's some counterexamples to your grossly flawed blanket statement:

---When a newspaper quotes a passage from a book because there is controversy over the words, guess what? The newspaper is making money off of a fair use of the copyrighted material.

---When Weird Al (or 2 Live Crew [92-1292]) copies a song's exact notes, phrasings, and sometimes lyrics, he is copying copyrighted material, FOR PROFIT, and it is a fair use.

I could go on and on. Check out the 2 Live Crew case for a landmark decision in fair use.

This is also a pretty good beginner's reference for fair use.

Read CONFU for information on What is Fair Use?

RIAA can't object to you using, say, 30 seconds (or less than 10% of the original work, whichever is less) of a song to illustrate a story, article, or other editorial content about the music's author or musical genre. That would probably be called "fair use" and would be the audio equivalent of a "thumbnail." Using the entire song would be considered public performance and rebroadcast, even at less-than-maximum audio resolution. (I am not a lawyer. For good Fair Use guidelines, see the University of Texas site.

It will stop you when Disney sues your school district and they fire you.

It sounds to me like your uses fall within Fair Use, which for multimedia is generally interpreted as 10 minutes or 15%, whichever is less. (multimedia copyright info) TEACH allows you to use materials in the same way online that you always used them in a live classroom, but the materials must be password protected and protected from further copying (generally interpreted as streamed).

If you are interested in copyright, check out the University of Texas and Purdue which both have wonderful information about Copyright.

In finland, do they have Fair Use? Because Nursery Rymes and such would be the stereotypical fair use type deal, I mean, it should be argued that that's for educational purposes, which is generally covered under fair use. It's specifically menchioned as an exception here.

News:Closely watched copyright case goes to jury - San Francisco Chronicle - 2 hours ago
Groups at odds over hidden copyright fees - The Globe and Mail - 11 Dec 2002
Defense rests in ElcomSoft copyright trial - San Jose Mercury News - 10 Dec 2002
New! Try Google News: Search news for copyright or browse the latest headlines

US Copyright Office
US Copyright Office is an office of public record for copyright registration and
deposit of copyright material. ... (Legal Notices)Legal Notices. About Copyright. ...
Description: Office of public record for copyright registration and deposit of copyright material.
Category: Regional>NorthAmerica>...>LibraryofCongre ss
www.loc.gov/copyright/ - 36k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

Copyright Website
Copyright Website - The Copyright Wizard. Copyright your online assets -
online. ... Copyright Wizard. Register copyright for your Website - online! ...
Description: Endeavoring to provide real world, practical and relevant copyright information.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.benedict.com/ - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

Copyright Clearance Center: Permissions Made Easy
... Do you want to file a copyright for your work? ... Note: copyright.com
supplies permissions but not the copyrighted content itself. ...
Description: Offering licensing systems that facilitate compliance with the copyright law and promote the constitution...
Category: Society>Law>...>CopyrightServices>Licensi ng
www.copyright.com/ - 22k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

SUL: Copyright & Fair Use
... Overview of Copyright Law Copyright Management Center of the University
of Texas System Administration Office of General Counsel. ...
Description: A very good starting place built by the Stanford University.
Category: Arts>Music>Resources>Copyright
fairuse.stanford.edu/ - 5k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

10 Big Myths about copyright explained
10 Big Myths about copyright explained. An attempt ... Internet publication.
- by Brad Templeton. Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. ...
Description: Answers to common myths about copyright from Brad Templeton, former publisher at ClariNet Communications...
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html - 23k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

What is Copyright Protection?
What is Copyright Protection? A brief memorandum regarding copyrights
in general and as may be applied to the internet. Researched ...
Description: Information about copyrights in general, and as applied to the internet.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.whatiscopyright.org/ - 2k - Cached - Similar pages

TITLE 17
... TITLE 17 TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS. CHAPTER 1 SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE
OF COPYRIGHT; CHAPTER 2 COPYRIGHT OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER; CHAPTER ...
Description: Title 17- Copyrights- of the US Code in its entirity from Cornell University
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ - 5k - Dec. 12, 2002 - Cached - Similar pages

US Copyright Office, Copyright Basics (Circular 1)
Circular 1. Copyright © Basics Español September 2000. Copyright
Basics. Format Note. Table of Contents. ... WHAT IS COPYRIGHT? Copyright ...
www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html - 78k - Cached - Similar pages

THE UT SYSTEM CRASH COURSE IN COPYRIGHT
Copyright Crash Course Logo with Link to Copyright Crash Course, Want to use, images?
Want to create things with them? You need a crash course in copyright... ...
Description: Beginner's guide to all aspects of copyright law, from the University of Texas.
Category: Society>Law>...>IntellectualProperty>Copyrights
www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/cprtin dx.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

IPR Notice and Disclaimers
... Copyright © 1994-2002 W3C ® (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institut National
de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, Keio University), All ...
www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/ipr-notice - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Dissatisfied with your search results? Help us improve.

GoogleHome - AdvertisewithUs - SearchSolutions - Services&Tools - Jobs,Press,&Help
2002 Google

Yes, you can. GPL is copyright and is still subject to fair use, which includes quoting. So long as my new work only uses small snippets of the original, it is not considered a derivative work. The length of an acceptable quote and whether or not something is a derivative work is a value judgement that has to be decided on a case by case basis following the 4 rubrics of fair use (defined in copyright law, but in a slightly different form here) .
But that is really besides the point, because what we are talking about are facts, and facts are not subject to copyright. So I can look at GPLed source code and determine that a processor has this many registers, or requires this bit set to use this feature, etc. Those are all facts, not expressions of an idea, and I can derive those from the Linux source code and put them in anything I want.

Hope that helps,
Nathan

Can the federal taxpayer funded research be considered a 'work for hire':

see here

A BSD type free for anyone to use license is the way to go for federal taxpayer funded research.

GPL is too restrictive.

Of note most government documents are uncopyrighted since everyone in the USA whom pays federal taxes pays/owns the documents.

That was the case I was thinking of. But there are two issues here:

1. Whether it is legal for someone to make extracts of any resolution, and;

2. Whether the copyright holder should be obliged to make them available or make it possible for them to be obtained.

Good point. 1 is a given, but 2 is not that clear cut. There are some acts of fair use that can not be performed unless you have a full quality unprotected digital copy, but the majority of fair use could probably be satisfied with a lesser-quality copy.

When I indicated that DRM implementations must remove all restrictions when the copyright expires, I was thinking of that as part of redress for this imbalance.

Removing restrictions on copyright expired works should be a requirement. Not doing so would, imho, be a case of copyright abuse.

(I think we both agree that the copyright term is insanely long for many types of works.)

My take is that if the DRM can be defeated, there is no right to prevent such defeat, if it enables some fair use uses. However, if DRM is such that it is impossible to do so, then some accomodation to facilitate exercise of traditional fair use is required.

Agreed. This would require some changes to the DMCA and the EU Infosoc directive, so let's stop arguing and start lobbying. :)

Nowhere do they address "perfect copies". So, while you might have a right to make a perfect copy, I don't see an obligation on the part of a copyright holder to make it possible for you to have one, only that you can make "some" copy, sufficient for criticism, parody, etc.

I'd be perfectly willing to fight for the right to have "perfect copies", but as you say - there is no firm support for that view in current legislation.

But there is also nothing in the legislation that says that you are _not_ entitled to perfect copies for fair use purposes, so as a matter of law it seems like it is an undecided issue and as a matter of precedent we (afaik) only have the Kaplan ruling.

"Advances in technology create opportunities for rightholders to sell new products, and it also create new opportunities for fair use. DRM will preserve the rightholders' benefits of new technology, but might to a large extent deny the creation of new fair use rights. "

What new rights? I can see new ways to exercize fair use rights (i.e. time- and space-shifting, i.e. with a VCR) but the rights do not change (making personal copies, in this case).

"Fair use" is not an exhaustive list. When a court is called upon to determine if something is fair use or copyright infringement they use the four step test:

1. What is the character of the use?
2. What is the nature of the work to be used?
3. How much of the work will you use?
4. What effect would this use have on the market for the original or for permissions if the use were widespread?

[I dare you to try to implement this as DRM rules :) ]

See this for a more detailed discussion on fair use.

So - if Sony had not included a 'record' button on the Betamax, it is likely that the supreme court would never have had the opportunity to decide whether time shifting of TV broadcasts was a fair use or not. If I remember correctly, the fair use-ness of time shifting had not been determined by the courts prior to Universal vs Sony so this ruling actually _created_ the time shifting right.

New technology create new opportunities for using copyrighted works. By using DRM to prevent many acts, the courts are not given the possibility to decide which of these acts are fair use.

For example, one new potential right might be "storage shifting". I buy some music, and want to be able to access it from anywhere. I upload the music to 'mp3storage.com', and they give me an username/password so that I, and only I, can access the music from any Internet-connected device. Is this a 'fair use'? Maybe, maybe not.

It appears that you wish to only give AAs legal recourse against copyright violators, and not technical recourse.

Correct.

Please keep in mind that technology might also make it easier for them to discover copyright infringement online. To participate in massive copyright infringement, I have to make it easy for other people to find the material. This will also make it easier for rightholders to find me (think infringement-searching spiders on the web and P2P networks). Paired with DMCA'esque notice-and-takedown systems and a kind of copyright small-claims court, the rightholders will not be without teeth.

Going after the infringers instead of killing P2P service providers and spending a lot of money on developing and pushing DRM systems is - in my book - a better solution.

Just to clarify, UNT is not part of the UT system. See the list here.

The courts have already ruled on "first sale". Once the publisher sells the copy, they have no say over what you do with it, wether its read it and throw it out, give it away, sell it, burn it, etc.

Arrogant and unrealistic? Of course. Hard to imagine congress criminalizing used book stores! I doubt if anybody at AOL/TW or Disney really envisions achieving such a goal. It's just a legal/political tactic. It's one more case of "lost intellectual property" that they can use as a bargaining chip when things like copyright extension and the precise definition of "fair use" come up for negotiation.

What is fair use though? How far does fair use extend and where do it limits end? That seems to one part of the problem, because there is no rule of thumb of what constitutes fair use. In seems to be in the same boat as justice, in that it's definitely a good thing to have but its a loose principle so there is no concrete definition to determine what is just and what isn't.

Looking on the Internet there are plenty of documents (example 1, example 2) that define fair use in academia, but are they such definitions in regards to personal use?

[Apologies for the slightly off-topic nature of this post. But it appears highly relevant because of the thread.]

How long before Taco or one of the other Slashdot editors is accused of and sued for libel by one of the individuals or corporations that is commented on (and perhaps defamed) on the site?

By the Lectric Law Library's definition, libel is:

Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. [The 'Lectric Law Library]

By the CyberLibel definition:

A publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. [CyberLibel]

I tried out the Libel Checklist over at UTexas, and found that a good number of posts by slashdot editor's could at least be considered suspect of libel claims. However, I am anything but a lawyer, and would love to hear a lawyer comment on this.

For example, if an editor posts a comment in response to an article saying something to the effect of "so-and-so's marketing practices are highly suspect and should be avoided by all good slashdotters." If the statement is not provably true, is not a fair report of an official and public record, is not a matter of public concern, is not merely abusive, is not consentual, and is not clearly an opinion, then such statements could, I believe, be intrepreted as libel.

Furthermore, could the users of Slashdot also be sued for libel due to their comments?

Or worse, could I be sued for libel for raising this very question about Rob and Slashdot? Uh-oh. Nevermind...

I'm not sure that it would matter to the courts whether the source code to descramble CSS was composed of 7 lines or 700, whether it was Perl or C or VB, compiled or binary. The judge probably wouldn't understand any of those details anyway. What really matters is that the MPAA scrambled the content on their DVDs and this code circumvents that. Just because you bought the disc, don't expect to use it in some way in which its owners don't approve. Unfotunately, if the judge could really understand the details of the case I think he would agree with the opinions expressed on Slashdot, so would just about any sensible person who doesn't have some vested intrest in the MPAA's revenue stream.

The reality is that once the lawyers use the word 'hacker' to describe the people who write code like this, throw in 'circumvent' a few times, and tell everyone that this program will cause their DVD prices to skyrocket, people's heads turn. The facts of the case get lost.

Anyway, this is a nice accomplishment. 7 lines of Perl that will descramble CSS. Sad that it constitutes a circumvention device, but maybe that will change.

I don't know how these note selling sites operate, but what if they sell them generically by topic rather than the specific class they came from. Whether you go to school in California or elsewhere notes on Freud's theories are notes on Freud's theories.

It will probably turn out to be one of those laws that's rarely enforced. If you're interested in fair use/copyright/intellectual property info the University of Texas (no I don't go there) has a decent site with some general rules of them. It can be found here. Wigs
--If we eliminate intellectual property, then intellectuals will have no property. Where have we seen that before?

For people who haven't had enough of the DMCA, here is an ISP info sheet put out by the University of Texas (UT)....

I wonder if these types of notices will eventually be federally mandated to post somewhere (think: company lunchroom).

Once the DMCA is turned against a large entity instead of "cannon fodder", I think the public will mysteriously begin to dislike it. Who knew?

;-)

Look for material that identifies a person or an entity. Keep in mind that it is possible to identify people or entities like corporations without actually using a name. If the material contains identifiable voices, likenesses, or descriptions of or concerning a person or a company, it could be a problem.

The material identifies a person or entity. STOP HERE if the material does not identify a person, business or other entity. You can't have a libel without someone to complain about it!

Is any identified person dead? There is little reason to be concerned with statements or other material reflecting badly on dead persons because the law only protects "the memory of the dead," giving no cause of action to decedents. So long as the material concerns only the dead person, you need not answer the rest of the questions on this form.STOP HERE if the person identified is dead.

If material identifies a living person, is it:
A private individual.
A public person.
A political person.

Would the material negatively influence a reasonable reader's opinion of the person or entity identified?
a. It would reflect badly on the character of the person or entity.
b. It could harm the reputation, diminish the esteem, respect or good will in which the person or entity's relevant community holds him, her or it.

If the material might reflect badly on character and/or harm reputation, would the harm be the result of:
An explicit statement.
An insinuation.
A sarcastic statement.
A parody or cartoon.
An opinion that implies that there are unstated defamatory facts underlying it.
Other.

There are several possible defenses to a claim of defamation, although none may apply in a particular case. Check one of the following defenses only if you are fairly certain it would apply.
The statement or other material is true.
The statement or other material is a fair report of an official or public record or proceeding.
The statement or other material is purely an expression of opinion and not an assertion of fact.

The statement or other material constitutes a fair comment - that is, a comment or opinion on a matter of public concern, for example, the use of public money, disbarment of attorneys, management of public institutions and charities, management of private companies whose activities widely affect the public (pollution, delivery of medical services, common carriage, employment practices, discrimination, etc.) or the review of books, public entertainment, sports events or scientific discoveries.

No one could reasonably interpret the statement or image to be an assertion of actual fact about the person or entity.

The statement or image can be characterized as mere words of abuse, indicating dislike for the person or entity, but does not suggest any specific charge.

The subject of the statement or image has given consent to or approved the material.

The fact that material has already been printed somewhere else is not a defense except in the narrow fair report circumstance. Republication of a libel creates another libel.