Slashdot Mirror
The DMCA Vs. Small Developers
bumppo writes "Matt Warner, a Mac developer and IT guy, writes about his experience trying to use the DMCA against a much larger software company that unilaterally lifted his TV tuner/converter app and bundled it with their hardware product, even hawking it on the side of the box. He explains why he didn't get very far, and sees plausible implications for the GPL." One lesson here seems to be that though registration of copyrighted materials may not be necessary for them to be given legal protection, it goes a long way toward preventing such usurpation. (Note that the FSF is careful to copyright the code it releases under the GPL.) And DMCA or not, shareware and other non-retail software has been incorporated into collections without permission quite a bit before.
IANAL, but perhaps someone who IAL will say whether something like this will work.
In your license agreement, state the following: "By distributing this software outside the terms of this license agreement, you agree to pay the author a license fee of $1 billion per copy. Failure to pay within 90 days will result in a late fee of $1 million per day."
Will this work? If not, why not? OK maybe $1 billion is excessive. Is there any amount which will stick (or at least attract lawyers to take the case?)
Second, he failed to register his copyright.
Third, the GPL is a *license*. The L in GPL. It's a license on top of a copyrighted work. From the gnu site: "We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software."http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
FSF does register their copyrighted works, as noted.
So this story has implications with respect to GPL..um...how? The only conclusion I can logically reach is that he coulda, shoulda released it under the GPL so as to protect himself from this.
The Copyright Office page explains why it is advantageous to register the copyright, even though the work is copyrighted without that step being taken, precisely so you *can* sue, if needed. Anyone who skips this step of registration appears to be not well enough informed. (Another good reason to release under the GPL. . . They have expertise you probably lack. Or at least consult a lawyer. Or at least get the US Copyright Office's booklet on protecting your intellectual property.)
Here's their explanation on the US Copyright Office website:
"In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:
"Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
"Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.
"If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
"If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
"Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov for online publications. " http://www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circ1.html
Bottom line: ill-informed attacks on the GPL are ill-informed. Slashdot seems to go out of their way to post such stuff. Maybe it's time to read and think more precisely. Consult your attorney before you wax poetic about the beauties of releasing under your own concepts of what constitutes enough protection. Otherwise, you risk being the proverbial lamb to the slaughter. I wish I had a dollar for every post on this forum about how the GPL "limits" freedom. And it does. It is designed precisely to limit the freedom of people or entities who desire to rip other people off.
This reminds me of something that happened to me one time. I had made a nice bit of software ( my lawyers I can't be epxlicit about it) that you've probably heard about. Lo and behold, one day a friend asked me about the Xxxx package in a certain operating system out of Washington, and how much it looked like mine.
Well, I checked out the operating system, and it was nearly a clone. I called my lawyer, showed him the two apps side by side, and he agreed. We were on teh next plance to Seattle.
Amazingly enough, this corporate software giant agreed to meet with us. We were ushered into a quiet, comfortable conference room to meet with an IP lawyer.
Soon enough, the IP lawyer came in. Our jaws dropped to the floor, she could have been on Ally McBeal. She was a tall, long legged redhead with a skirt that couldn't be much shorter. She sat next to us, arranged her skirt to pointlessly try to cover herself, leaned forward, her ripe breasts straining to get out of her dress blouse, and quietly asked "How can I help you two?"
This reminds me. When I was very young, I rememer kids who would say what they wanted to be when they grew up. You'd get "fireman" "policeman" nurse, president, and occasionaly some kid would want to be a bird or some other non-human creature. I always thought that was kind of funny.
I guess the joke was on us all though. Because we all grew up to be something less than free. Votes that don't matter because "counting" errors and politicos who don't do what they promise, and the laws that impact our lives can be bought and sold like condoms out of a vending machine.
And of course, those very same laws are interpreted broadly, depending on who is to be judged by them.
Oh yeah I'm cynnical. I'm generation X. And this country is turning into a fucking shithole.
(Besides, under certain cases, tying two products is also illegal. Microsoft got caught on that one, and only escaped by convincing the appeals court that a web browser is really an Operating System in disguise.)
Lastly, the purchasers of the manure might complain about toxic contamination.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This means that the CD-ROM may actually fall under all sorts of "fair use" and reasonableness clauses. If it did, that wasn't the guy's fault, it was yours for not understanding the relevent law.
Second, the GPL does not rely on copyright. Truly "GNU" GPL programs have to be registered, the source must comply with certain licence message requirements, etc, to ensure that the GPL is definitely in place.
Third, EULA's are not legally enforcable in most of the US. (Virginia and Maryland being the two exceptions.) To rely on an EULA for protection is, frankly, naive. (The only reason large companies can ue EULAs is that 500 lb gorillas can do pretty much what they like.)
Last, I would be more sympathetic, except that the post looked very much like a "poor me, victim of this big meanie". Now, the small-time developer can be very much a victim, but this doesn't look like a case of that, to me. It sounds like an honest mistake by a small-time company that got blown WAAAY out of proportion by a greedy developer.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Yes, a copyright FAQ for Slashdot is an excellent idea.
Another point that is relevant to this discussion is that only American programmers need to register their code with the Copyright Office to get statutory damages and attorney's fees. Foreign nationals don't have to do this because of the United States international copyright treaty obligations. Anyone who is interested can look directly at the provision in the legal source, the U.S. copyright law, 17 U.S.C. section 412.
No.
Try reading the GPL before spreading misinformation.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
But upon reading the article, you notice that the guy never took the matter to court. This isn't an issue where the DMCA failed a small developer. Rather this is an issue where the US court system failed the individual. The DMCA certainly doesn't gaurantee financial resources to sue, nor does it gaurantee that someone will settle out of court when they are faced with it. In fact, the DMCA really doesn't merit mention in this article, because the injustice has nothing to do with the DMCA or even copyright law in general--it has to do with the fact that large corporations will always have the money to win lawsuits because the little guy can't cough up $20k to take the issue to court.
Ok, as has been said in the comments already, the problem was that this guy didn't have enough money to fight the big badguy.
A question that hasn't come up, however, is in regards to the DMCA provision for filing copyrights on your software.
Indeed, it looks as though this guy could have made quite a pretty penny on his software if he'd just filed for a copyright on it originally. But then, the real question is, how often do you have to do this? For example, going over to freshmeat will show you that a GREAT deal of very good software is in beta or lower stages. Do you have to get a copyright on this? What if you change the code by just a variable name? Small changes could end up costly due to the copyright filing charges.
This means that the copyright system in general is anti-free software. If you have to get a new copyright on every cvsupdate you make, there is no way any individual working out of his or her garage could manage this. Sure, you may file copyright on version 1.0, but when you release 1.2 (which adds few new features), suddenly that version is not copyrighted?
I'm asking if this is the case because I truly don't know, but from my limited understanding of copyright law, derivative works aren't included (at least, in filed copyrights).
This means that the GPL and Open Source models will always be behind closed source, proprietary software.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Could a solution be to copyright the major versions, and then to provide diffs to update them to minor versions? This way a company might steal the diffs, but without the original software+source code, they'd be largely worthless, and you'd still have a leg to stand on in court, not to mention the possibility of puntitive damages.
I'm pretty sure all that's practically necessary is that you put all your work onto a CD / floppy, post it to yourself by registered delivery and leave the envelope unopened. You can even lodge it with a bank if you're feeling paranoid. But then if you need to prove you wrote it first, you've got a sealed package with a stamp from the Post Office which you can open in court, and this is cross-checkable with the PO's records.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
License terms on version 1.0:
"Matt's Hack TV, Version 1.0 Portions of application ©1998 Matt Warner Portions ©1992 by Apple
Computer, Inc. 'Email-me' ware: drop me a short note to let me know if you find this application useful. The application
is free and is not to be sold. There are no guarantees nor warranties regarding this software."
So Ariston sold it, even if it was in a bundle.
--
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra
DBA, SysAdmin
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
If I invent a widget, and give it to people out of the goodness of my heart, and some schlock takes my widget and starts selling it for profit, that's Wrong. Somebody is taking advantage of my good nature. How can you possibly think this is justified?
The author doesn't want to make a buck, he wants to protect his work from being exploited.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
what did you expect? When you buy a law you make sure it can't be used against you.
--
--
E_NOSIG
The problem is, that according to his site, version 1.0 is free, and version 2.0 is shareware.
This means that Ariston can FREELY redistribute it on their CDs, as long as the end users abide by the license terms.
License terms he gave on version 1.0:
"Matt's Hack TV, Version 1.0 Portions of application ©1998 Matt Warner Portions ©1992 by Apple
Computer, Inc. 'Email-me' ware: drop me a short note to let me know if you find this application useful. The application
is free and is not to be sold. There are no guarantees nor warranties regarding this software."
License terms he gave on version 2.0:
"Matt's Hack TV, Version 2.0, October 1998 Portions of application ©1998 Matt Warner Contact Info:
or Portions ©1992 by Apple Computer, Inc. $10 Shareware. There are no
guarantees nor warranties regarding this software.
What it does: Matt's Hack TV allows you to take advantage of your Power Macintosh AV input and output ports to convert,
in real time, NTSC to PAL, NTSC to SECAM, PAL to SECAM, or whatever combination. What you need is two video devices (two
VCRs, for example) which understand the appropriate video standard and your Macintosh will do the rest. I've only been
able to test the PAL NTSC aspect, but I don't expect there to be any problems with SECAM functionality.
One user has setup his Power Macintosh to his satellite system so that he can watch PAL broadcasts on his NTSC TV, in
real time!
I can't speak as to the quality of the Analog converters (DAC) used in the Power Macintosh, but I suspect that it does
not match the quality found in professional or dedicated systems. But hey, if you already own a Power Macintosh, it's
practically free (excepting the cost of the PAL VCR or camcorder).
Related Info: How do I setup my Power Macintosh for video standard conversions? The first step is to make sure that you
have RCA or S-VHS plugs connected to the ports at the back of your machine. Then, you must restart so that the Macintosh
goes into a dual-screen mode. You might notice that your main screen doesn't have as many colors available to it since
part of the video RAM is being used to drive the virtual monitor for the video-out port. If you either connect the input
video to the output port or have a VCR plugged in and turned on, you should be able to see what's displayed on the
virtual monitor (and goes to the video-out port). You should at least see your desktop pattern. Launch Matt's Hack TV
and set the input type to PAL, even though your virtual monitor is likely set to NTSC. Move all windows out of sight and
open the Monitors & Sound Control Panel. Move the main window out of the way (window-shade it even) and you'll be able
to see a second window that sets the characteristics of the virtual monitor, including bit depth and resolution. To
access the monitor, you'll have to move your mouse off your main screen and onto the virtual screen. For PAL output,
choose one of the PAL settings. For NTSC or SECAM, choose the appropriate setting.
Where to buy PAL equipment: I bought a PAL-system VCR through the mail from B&H Photo and Video in New York (I'm on the
west coast of the USA). Their web site is http://www.bhphoto.com. They also sell professional equipment and had
reasonable prices, so I felt pretty comfortable buying from them. And no, I am in no way affiliated with them (wouldn't
that be nice!).
Hey! My color picker stopped working! Actually, it's a problem with the color picker itself. The color picker
automatically chooses the deepest-pixel-depth monitor, which (if you have the problem) is the virtual monitor.
Unplugging the video-out jack and rebooting will restore expected behavior.
Background: I wrote this software to use in conjunction with a PAL-system VCR to which I transfer home video in
originally shot in NTSC. This way I can send video to friends overseas. I looked around for an application which
performed a similar task, but couldn't find one. So I wrote my own, based on sample code found at Apple's QuickTime
site, written by Gary Woodcock and called Hack TV.
With version 2.0 I added menubar hiding (thanks to sample code from David Hayward at Apple DTS), preferences file
support (thanks to Jim Luther, Apple DTS Emeritus), and clipping support.
Change History March 1999. Minor change to fix compatibility issues with third-party digitizing cards, such as the iREZ
Capsure for PowerBooks.
October 1998. Added Appearance Manager features (now required). Added a proper preferences file. Added clipping feature.
Changed background blackout functionality for better reliability. Added Òhide menubar option.Ó Squashed,
created, then squashed innumerable bugs. Now $10 shareware.
March 1998. Released as version 1.0.1. Changes to documentation.
March 1998. Released as version 1.0.0 First release.
Esoterica Anyone desiring to donate Mamiya medium-format camera equipment or SGI computer equipment/software to my
cause, be sure to contact me!
So, why the $10 charge? That's a tough question. The short answer is that we (my family and I) need the money and it
takes time to develop software.
The long answer: When I wrote the first version, I made it free, as my own meager contribution back into the world
society that is the Internet.
The Internet was founded on sharing information and ideas. In fact, arguably some of the best software out there is
free. Unix is a prime example of this. Perhaps, in my case, this is just an instance of not being very proficient at
programming, so it takes a lot of time away from other tasks. The bottom line is that while it genuinely pains me to
charge for software, the pain is inconsequential when compared to that felt when I see my monthly stack of bills. So
please understand. And please pay =:-)
"
Conclusion? He just fancied some cash and decided to try his luck. He lost. Awww... too bad.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
The DMCA was far less relevant to this matter than the rest of Title 17 -- the Copyright Act itself. The problem here was that this guy just didn't do what he should have done to protect his work. Unless the asset was highly valuable after the fact, he is quite correct: it makes little sense to pursue a copyright action for an unregistered work. The problem wasn't that the laws failed him -- he just didn't take advantage of the laws.
As an IP attorney and computer lawyer, we \beat up on big companies for individuals and small companies all the time. And, from time to time, vice-versa. We also defend the little guy against an abusive big guy on the same terms. True, a monied litigant has advantages throughout America's courts -- this is hardly an issue unique to the Copyright Act. But the copyright Act is actually unique in that it is, by design, set up to provide powerful relief to underdogs with statutory damages that can include an award of attorney fees.
The idea is to have a strong case, and to be able to take good advantage of the remedies available to you under law.
This author did not.
One of the key mistakes he made, and this was huge, was to fail to register his valuable code, not with the "Patent Office" as he suggested, but rather with the Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress. It costs so little, and the massive differences it makes in a litigation scenario are huge.
Although its best to consult with a competent legal counselor the first time, most copyrights can be self-registered at nominal cost. Most of what you need to know can be found at: the Copyright Office web site.
Registering a work prior to infringement entitles you to statutory damages, possible statutory punitive remedies and a likely award of attorney fees in a suitable case. What a difference this can make for the defendant when factoring the consequences of an action. The hammer of an award of attorney fees and damages determined by a jury (not necessarily related to the actual damages at all), shakes the concience of a large corporation where it matters -- at the level of the bean counters. Suddenly, it makes no good sense to rattle sabres: it becomes a losing proposition.
Similarly, a wise defendant can use the Copyright law provisions to her advantage, particularly by exploiting the offer of judgment provisions of the local rules.
The laws cut both ways, and of course a monied litigant will often have advantages under EVERY LAW ON THE BOOKS. But it is no surprise that the Copyright Act offered this guy little relief -- he had a bad case.
Either we callit piracy and theft, or we call it infringement.
If they can call it piracy and theft, then we should too.
Though I'd be happier if everyone called it what it is: copyright infringement.
Great. Now the guy has had his software and his article redistributed without his permission.
(This isn't meant to be a troll. I promise!)
Ok, so what's the big deal? Here we are, whining because somebody doesn't get copyright protection for their work, somebody finds their work distributed in a way not allowed by the license. (Not that this is right.)
Whatever happened to all of those people who were crying to mommy because Napster was in trouble for wholesale distribution of copyrighted material in violation of the licenses on the albums?
Apparently, we like to have our cake and eat it too. We want to be able to download copyrighted materials from Napster, yet can't stand it when somebody uses our IP against our license.
Please, our arguments would be a little bit stronger if we picked one side or the other. I'm not saying Napster should be shut down, I'm not saying the RIAA isn't a bunch of jerks, and I'm not saying it isn't wrong to take someone's code and distribute it against their license agreement. I'm just saying that if we want to claim that information wants to be free, we'd better follow through and apply that belief in all areas, not just where convenient. If we want people to respect our license agreements (like GPL and FreeBSD's), we should make more of an effort to do a little bit of respecting ourselves.
(I'll get off my soapbox now. Sorry! Rant mode turning off.)
-- There are three kinds of people in this world: those who can count, and those who can't.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Okay, he did not give any details on his license, but he calls it "email me ware." So if that companies customers actually use the software and fail to email him they would be in violation.
I though this sort of distribution was the whole point of shareware.
I am all for the little guy, but it seems like this guy wants to change the rules in the middle of the game to make a buck.
-Peter
"There is no number '1.'"
Would this even be an issue for software under the BSD license? My understanding is that the whole point behind the BSD license is that companies can take your code and repackage it any way they want. I don't think the GPL lets companies do that.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
In a book I wrote years ago, I included code for, basically, extracting information about Windows VxDs from the binaries. I got this code from another developer who had placed copyright restrictions on the code. I included those restrictions along with the book and credited him for the code.
A few years later, Intel released a product for profiling software. In that software, they used the code from my book without my permission, nor the permission of the original author, who clearly stated that the code could not be used in for-profit software.
Being a small developer, and not having a registered copyright, there was nothing he could do. He certainly couldn't afford to take on the likes of Intel.
It's sad that companies with such large budgets and such talented programmers, have to resort to theft of code. And companies complain about piracy and intellectual property rights. They're a bunch of hypocrites and theives themselves.
The page for the registrar of copyrights is here.
I think the fee is about $30, which is pretty cheap for insurance if you are engaged in serious commercial activity that would inspire you to hire a lawyer later.
There are also criminal penalties. From the DOJ cybercrime web site:
See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (c)(1). The maximum punishment for this crime is 3 years imprisonment and $250,000. See infra Section III.D at page 71.
Another element, if proven, enhances the maximum penalty: That the defendant acted "for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain." If it is proven, the statutory maximum prison sentence can rise to 5 years. See 17 U.S.C. 506(a)(1); 18 U.S.C. 2319(a), (b)(1). See also infra Section III.B.5 at page 60 (discussing commercial purposes element). Moreover, a commercial motivation case will usually have better jury appeal than a case without commercial motivation. Indeed, if commercial motivation is not alleged, defendants may be more inclined to raise the affirmative defense of fair use, codified at 17 U.S.C. 107, since fair use defenses are more plausible when defendants do not profit financially by their acts of infringement. For a discussion of "fair use," see infra Section III.C.3 at page 71.
So talk to the local U.S. Attorney's Office.
Seems though, that larger companies seem to think they're doing you a huge favor by redistributing your work, so they feel justified in doing so.
Recently, I recieved an email from a larger font firm (who shall remain nameless), who said that they were planning on including a number of the fonts I've designed on a CDROM that they would be distributing. They further went on to say that if I wanted them removed, I had to email them by this-and-such-a-date... In short, the email said, "Well, we're using your shit unless you tell us we can't." No please, no thank you. Nothing.
At the time, I wanted more exposure for my site, so I let them go ahead with it, so long as the CD included all my usual files. I'm still pretty irked about their attitude, though...
----------------------------------------
Yo soy El Fontosaurus Grande!
blog |
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
DMCA, like other copyright laws, provides no real protection for a small developer.
Overview
Imagine you've put your best efforts into developing software. The law says that you automatically own the copyright on your original works, so when a company starts distributing your work in violation of whatever license you've chosen, you probably expect copyright legislation like the DMCA to protect you. Unless you've had a lawyer involved since the beginning of development, you'd better think again. This raises questions about the viability of open source licenses such as GPL which hinge on a copyright to ensure that software projects aren't hijacked.
This is the story of a small, naïve developer who didn't file the copyright on his software and ended up being abused by Ariston Technologies, in Huntington Beach, California. My hope is that others can learn from this situation.
Summary
Ariston Technologies clearly violated copyright laws by distributing for profit a proprietary work without knowledge or permission of the copyright holder. Copyright laws such as the DMCA provide for collection of either statutory or actual damages. Current interpretation by the courts precludes collection of statutory damages unless the copyright was actually filed with the Patent Office before the violation. In the case of shareware or open source software, proving damages is exceptionally difficult. However, even in cases where the copyright has been filed, most copyright lawyers do not work on a contingency basis, and so will not bother with a case involving shareware or open source software unless the potential dollar amount is significant. The alternative is for the individual to pay for prosecution out of pocket, which can quickly exceed US$20,000, for an award that may not be even half that. So even in cases where copyright laws have clearly been violated, the net effect is that they are unable to protect the small developer.
Background
In 1998, I developed a small piece of software, Matt's Hack TV, to fill a particular need. The resulting version 1.0 binary was distributed as "email me ware," which required that users merely email me what they thought of the software. Included in the terms of release was a note that the software was not to be sold. It was not GPLed, but it was free. In 1999, I added functionality and revised the terms to include a $10 shareware fee. It was released as version 2.0.
In early 2000, I discovered that Ariston Technologies was distributing version 1.0 of the software on a CDROM sold with their iSEE-I USB product. The software was also used as advertising on the packaging material (see images to the right), and was featured at the top of the CDROM once opened. The CDROM was not provided as a public service nor was it available to the general public, even though this violated the usage terms of the first, free version. The last page of their manual included wording that stated that all software was furnished under license and that I (being the manufacturer) was effectively providing support for my stolen software, both of which were totally false.
When I first contacted Ariston, I saw the possibility of a business deal, with the potential for a wider distribution base. Unfortunately, when confronted about this matter, Mr. Lazarous Bontour, the president of Ariston Technologies, first feigned surprise and later, he significantly downplayed the situation by claiming that distribution was very limited and that the software had only been used for "tech support." Perhaps sensing impending legal problems, Mr. Bontour never seriously discussed forming a business arrangement, so money didn't enter the equation. At the end, his tone changed to insults with claims that the software "wasn't worth" it, and that they were pulling the software from their "latest" CDROM revision, even though the disk info shows the then-current version had been created in January 2000. At this point I knew I was out of my league, so I contacted an attorney to negotiate a settlement.
Several months were consumed with collecting the evidence, providing it to the attorney, and several rounds of attempted negotiation with Ariston. In the end, Ariston stonewalled the process and refused to negotiate. At this point, the only option was federal court, a costly proposition, with the daunting task of proving damages, since statutory damages are available only to software for which a copyright was actually filed before the infringement.
Pursuing the case further is apparently futile as of this writing. My only consolations are that others might benefit from my story and the hope that Ariston will either eventually get what's coming to them or change their unprincipled business practices.
Reference Materials
[ snipped quote from GPL to avoid lame lameness filter ]
decide to take it to the source.
Because their SQL server is a page in the story of "The Little Server that Died," this info is provided below from Their Contact Page.
Why not give them at the corporate office a call? When you call you might hear a nasal kinda "assistant" -- I figure that if she writes down all the complaints and passes even 1/5 of them on, then notice would filter its way to the top some time.
Come on -- takes a moment of your time.
Contact US
Corporate Office:
800-326-5294
Local: 714-846-7676
Fax: 714-846-3546
Web Address
http://www.ariston.com
E-mail Sales
sales@ariston.com
If I publish a book that's a compilation of articles, it requires but one copyright registration. So where would we be if a service was set up where anything under appropriate license (say, GNU) could be uploaded to a site from which it would be (in compressed form) added to a DVD compilation-of-the-month (or so) that would be duly registered with the Feds under an "all rights revert to the authors of the individual packages" arrangement? After all, if I copyright a book or magazine - which will in some instances contain such an assignment to the original authors - and you steal a single article from it, you're guilty. And this means it wouldn't take 100s of folks submitting registration to the feds (and the fees that involves) but only one small organization with the ability to collect the stuff and burn the DVD (it would also I think be necessary to actually offer the DVD for sale in order to secure the copyright - so that it's actually published - but hey, that could be a useful thing to have or subscribe to for some).
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
A better title might have been "The DCMA vs. Large Businesses" or "The DCMA sucks for Small Developers."
In this instance, someone tried to use the DCMA against a large corporate entity and found it didn't provide him with the resources he needed to protect his work.
The important thing to note here is that the DCMA works best for those with lots of cash, whichever side of the fence they're on.
To be specific, most companies and patent lawyers have years of experience in circumventing copyrights. The large companies routinely use two attacks to destroy the copyright. First, they throw money at it and hope the developer is too poor to fight. Second, they assume that small developers do not keep good documentation.
There is not much that can be done about the money. Lawyers must be hired; expert witnesses paid; bonds must be negotiated. In a more cynical world, congressmen and judges must be bought.
There are things that developers can do for documentation. For instance, in olden times developers snail mailed themselves copies of their designs. The postmark dates a design until the seal is broken. On a more sophisticated level, laboratory notebooks can be kept that have approval space and perforated copies. (Of course, I am not a lawyer, so I say this only as an example of why we would expect the DMCA to be ineffective and how I have seen people deal with it in the past.) Look at it this way. If I published a book remarkably similar to the "Confederacy of Dunces" a few years before Toole's mother allegedly 'found' the manuscript, who would own the copyright?
(Note that the FSF is careful to copyright the code it releases under the GPL.)
What he really means is that the FSF is careful to register copyrighted code. Any copyrightable material is copyrighted by YOU as soon as YOU "fix" it on a "medium."
What registration gives you is extra protections, such as the ability to collect statuatory damages up to $100,000 if the infringement is judged to be willful. (If you don't register, you can only collect actual damages, which are very difficult to assess.) You can may also collect attorney's fees.
Hope this clears that up. We really need a copyright FAQ on Slashdot.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Sadly, enforcement comprises a good percentage of the law. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be so concerned with the 'precidents' that certain court cases set.
The simple fact of the matter is that unless small and GPL developers start suing and winning court cases, Large developers (Microsoft, as well as this other guy) can do anything they want to with GPL code without fear of reprisal.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
This guy failed to register the copyright and is now complaining that he can't afford to take the case to court - tough.
If the guy had registered the copyright the risk of statutory damages would have forced the infringer to negotiate a settlement.
Don't forget that one half of the copyright bargain is disclosure, in return for giving the library of Congress a copy of the work to archive the copyright owner gets enhanced legal redress. No disclosure, well sort the mess out yourself.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The 'customer service number actually worked, but was reassigned to another company. The guy on the other end of the line told me that I "had the right number, but that company went out of business".
[Insert the usual disclaimer here]