Slashdot Mirror
False Copyright Claims
FreetoCopy writes "Teenagers downloading music may not be the worst copyright offenders. See this item (available for download in PDF file with free registration) about the growing problem of copyfraud — in which publishers, archives, and distributors make false claims of copyright to shut down free expression. From the paper: 'Copyfraud is everywhere. False copyright notices appear on modern reprints of Shakespeare's plays, Beethoven's piano scores, greeting card versions of Monet's Water Lilies, and even the US Constitution. Archives claim blanket copyright in everything in their collections. Vendors of microfilmed versions of historical newspapers assert copyright ownership. These false copyright claims, which are often accompanied by threatened litigation for reproducing a work without the owner's permission, result in users seeking licenses and paying fees to reproduce works that are free for everyone to use...'"
That summary is copyright (c) Me 2007 - take it down now, or I'm sending the lawyers round!
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
The DMCA has become the new method of censorship. Remember when the Bush Camp tried to shut down Jib Jab over the copyright of "This land is my land?" When the corporations and (some governments.) want you not to see something, they serve IP take down notices.
Sue You
Take it down now
Take it down now
That summary is copright
Take it down now
I'll sue you if you don't
Take it down now
I'm sending the lawyers round!
Your overuse of my IP clearly falls outside the realm of Fair Use, so "take it down now!"
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Copy as many non-free works as possible! Download music, movies... oh wait, this is /.
Sizzla Jizzla Baby, Sizzla FAWKING Jizzla!!
Could this mean that traditional or copy expired songs recorded by artists and released by the industry cannot be claimed under copyright law?
just a thought.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
As far as I can see, there is apparently no consequence for making a false claim of ownership. Perhaps false claims of ownership should result in the loss of their ability to assert copyright at all. Actually, that probably wouldn't be appropriate but I'm at a loss for what would be appropriate in a case of false assertion especially when it should be obvious that they didn't create the works in question.
However, when you create a "derivative work" based on public domain content, it's probably eligible for copyright protection in and of itself. The problem comes from where you draw the line. Perhaps in the interest of preserving the public domain, there should be law stating that any use of public domain material within derivative works should also fall within the public domain. Imagine how viral that could be...
I paid money to the family of King John of England after they claimed it was work derived from something called the "Magna Carta." I think I may have been rooked.
I thought that in some instances, you can copyright your presentation of a public domain work.
/TFA is 75 pages //I like the conclusion
In other words, people are free to copy the original, but not your [whatever] of the original.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
The way organizations get around the expiration of copyrights is by controlling access to the source... The Mona Lisa is a fine example: her likeness might be public domain, but if the only one who is allowed to scan or photograph her is the museum then they have a coyright on the image created.
...Beethoven's scores, it's not the score itself, it's the arrangement and/or the actual performance or recording that's copyrighted.
The real issue here is not that the artists are losing money, but that they think about their breathing. In and out, they have to control every single breath and can no longer breathe automatically.
I'm very pro public domain, cc and copy-left but the FA omits some facts.
Although he's right that merely digitizing or copying a public domain work does not result in a new copyright, creating a collection of public domain works does. The individual works remain in the public domain, but you can't copy the "collection" as a whole (eg. scan and upload the book as a whole to the internet) because the creativity of selecting and assembling the work is a new copyright. This, for example, would apply to Dover books of public domain clip art.
Also, public domain music can be re-copyrighted to an extent--unfortunately--because individual arrangements can be copyrighted. You are free to use the original tune, but you can't copy a new arrangement because that arrangement is a new copyright.
Public domain is not GPL. Just because a work is public domain doesn't mean that derivative works will be public domain.
Now, that being said, the article is, otherwise, a good one. I'm tired of museums and "educational" institutions claiming copyright on the public domain works in their collection and copyright on the reproductions of those works. In those cases, no new creativity has occurred and there is no new copyright.
If my band records Amazing Grace, our performance (and any changes, like adding a bass solo) is copyrightable, this does not change the original work (it is still public domain). This prevents someone from stealing our performance (not that I'd care, the more people who hear us will result in more paying gigs!) or our derivative work! I believe that in film a public domain film may have versions that are not in public domain. If for example a company colorized it or did a significant amount work removing the hiss from the audio track and/or cleaning up the video, their version can be copyrighted. IANAL obviously (or I'd have used so much legalese that nobody would understand what the hell I'm talking about).
-- I'll be back before you can say antidisestablishmentarianism...
ALL claims of exclusive ownership and control over information are fraudulent. The law itself is a fraud.
What?
Don't go into convulsions just yet!
But we need an effective way for marking content with important details such as copyright owner, copyright date, contact details, and perhaps even licensing details in terms of what the licensor explicitly allows to be done with the content, even if there is no artificial technology restriction imposed on what is disallowed.
For example, if I find a piece of music on the Internet and I want to use it in something that I'm creating, how do I know if I can? Who do I contact? What if I don't even know what the song actually is? Sure enough, even knowing that the copyright holder doesn't want me to do such a thing might not stop me from doing it, but at least I know I'm acting against their wishes.
If we could have some form of DRM that was actually more like "digital rights marking", and survived transcoding/editing, that would probably be very interesting. To the extent that it wasn't used to restrict our actions, but merely make us aware of what we were doing (in terms of our actions being acceptable or otherwise), maybe that's something we as a society could agree to adopt.
... Shakespeare is dead?
realkiwi
.... require them to put their legal copyrights into public domain.
Best way i know to make money works every time. Sucker born every second.
And even if we do have the complete, original, score, it may have been for old instruments. A lute is not the same as a guitar, for example, and when Vivaldi wrote for lute, he knew how it would be tuned, and what fingerings were possible. To make it work on a guitar can be quite a creative challenge.
Even if we still use the same instruments as the composer wrote the piece for, we might want a score for different instruments. You can't just sit down at your piano, or guitar, or with your full orchestra, with the score to, say, Bach's cantata #147 ("Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring") as originally written as a choral work, and start playing. It just won't work. You basically have to rewrite the music for those different settings.
From TFA:
The Copyright Act provides for no civil penalty for falsely claiming ownership of public domain materials.
While this may be true, isn't there a way to fire back with a slander/libel charge? (ha! Let's see the pendants call me on this one :) In other words, you're claiming that I'm violating copyright on one of your works, but that claim is invalid because you don't actually own the copyright.
One possible problem (and a lawyer would have to confirm if this is a problem) is that copyright violations are a matter of federal law (in the US), while slander/libel is state law.
Not a typewriter
Some of the examples given could have valid claims for copyright. Layouts are protected under the Berne Convention. Sure the words of a Shakespeare play are free from copyright but the way they're laid out on a page is classed as a new work. You cannot scan in every page, then print the book as your own. In terms of art pieces on birthday cards, who is to say they haven't done extensive alterations to the original painting? Also, as petty as it may seem, putting "happy birthday" on the front is an original work and although "obvious" design choices could be reproduced in other works, straight out scanning and copying is a no no.
The works of the public domain are under my copyright. Please fax me a dollar for each use.s -selling-solar.html
--
Mass production solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Piracy, where the numbers are real or exaggerated,has real damages. What is the dollar cost of copyfraud?
I must say that I'm not totally sure I agree with this (and I usually am pretty much right on with Slashdot group think on copyright laws).
For instance, I have made a little pocket change reprinting a rare 1863 cookbook. By no means am I getting rich off of it, but I do put a copyright on the ebooks I sell just to have some legal options. I don't care if someone prints it out and OCRs it, there isn't a thing in the world I could do about that. But I had to spend a couple of days OCRing the material, cleaning it up, and formatting it. Anyone else wanting to sell it, or give it away, should have to do the same, not swipe my work.
How exactly should someone be able to just start reselling my ebook and why is that wrong of me to put a copyright notice on it?
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
I frequently use the ProQuest databases of newspaper story images, available courtesy of my public library. These are digitized page images. Those for The New York Times go cover 1851 to 2003; those for the Boston Globe, 1872 - 1923.
All of these, without exception, bear the notice "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission."
In the case of articles published before 1923 (and don't you think it's interesting that the Globe cuts off at exactly 1923?) I completely fail to see how these can be anything other than a faithful reproduction of a work published in the United States before 1923.
Darn it, at the very least, if someone is going to claim copyright in something, they should be required to give an explicit statement of the legal basis for their claim. Maybe there's some way this material is copyrighted, but in the case of material that every university library guideline says is in the public domain, the burden of proof... or at least, the burden of saying why this is an exception to the general rule... should fall on the person making the assertion.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Bah! Can you not see that the Jews are just a sock-puppet diversion away from the REAL conspiracy. As is the Free Masons, and the Templars, and the Illuminati, most of the UFOs, and the supersonic nazi hell creatures from inside the hollow earth.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
How about your tagline, though? Are you mental?More like
Picard > Archer > Kirk > Janeway > * > Sisko
And while we're at it, might as well compare the series too:
TNG > Voyager > Enterprise > TOS > Movies > Early DS9 > Soap opera DS9
Janeway would rate higher than Kirk if she didn't discard so many chances to get home, such as the episode I saw the other day where they were all abducted onto a ship whose transporter uses artificial wormhole technology to beam people 10 light years and had all kinds of other cool technology...she and Tuvok managed to kick their asses but ended up giving them back their ship without even studying the technology, let alone keeping it which would really have been well within the bounds of justice...it would have been easy to write in some bit of plot to find technology on that ship for getting home faster, and in the meantime they could have had a second ship to help defend themselves...
(Maybe I should wear glasses. And put tape on the nose piece. And wear a pocket protector.)
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
Why not just take whatever you want, and then claim you've released it into the public domain?
Actually, while it is true that mass disregard for copyright could conceivably have a potential long-term effect of weakening copyright (at least with regard to non-commercial copying), that also undermines the legitimate functions of copyright, and will in addition fail to have any positive effects whatsoever with regard to copyfraud.
What we need to do is to set up a global reputation system of publishers and other businesses where copyfrausters and those who deceive or defraud the public in other ways get their reputations trashed by means of publication of detailed proof of what they did and/or do wrong, while more honest competitors get positive reputation points for their honesty.
Corbis has tons of pre 1923 images, images from US Govt photographers (WWII, etc) that are all labeled (c) copyright.
You might want to review Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, in which the Supreme Court ruled that copyright protects creative expression, not 'sweat of the brow'.
. _Rural_Telephone_Service.
So while there may be something about your e-book that is protectable, the OCR of the original text almost certainly does not qualify.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_Publications_v
You're obviously a person of great intellect and superior ethnic stock. Your clever truncation of "I've seen" to "I seen" tells me you're in firm command of the English language. You must be one of the Master Race indeed.
I also like your smooth analysis and insightful use of facts to back up your well-formulated theories. With this sort of clear logic and solid argumentation, I know you'll go far in life.
Keep up the great work, and thanks for illuminating us with your wisdom!
I seen that a lot of time. Jews has abuse the legal system to oppress poor people for their own gain. Remember the entire music AND movie industry is controlled by jews.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
There's a perfect example. I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone mention them yet.
I sell out of print books on eBay. There is a certain historic African-American sorority that published a quite hard to find history of the organization -- tends to bring triple-digit prices when you can find a copy. I've been fortunate enough to twice have found a copy (once at an estate sale, once in a Goodwill), and both times when it was listed on eBay, I was INUNDATED with hostile messages from members of that sorority. Apparently, they believe that the fact that the book is copyrighted means that only THEY can sell copies, and only to fellow members -- as far as they are concerned, I don't have the right to read it or even posess it, let alone sell it! Both times, they lodged complaints with eBay who politely explained to them the right of resale and the fact that pretty much every used book sold, whether on eBay or in your local book nook, is copyrighted. But that didn't stop them from continuing to harass me and threaten me with legal action (take yer best shot, I told 'em). Really makes one wonder what sort of deep, dark secrets are in that book that they don't want any "outsiders" to get their hands on a copy!
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
Teenagers downloading music may not be the worst copyright offenders.
This guy is kidding right? Or he is referring to adult downloading movies/software as the worst offenders.
In fact the worst copyright offenders are lazy people. That don't care about their users' violations until, few days after the content was published, some copyright owner find that content, mail or fax (the requested medium) a DMCA notification, an wait until, in a weekday, a clerk at the lazy company office finally pick that notice from the pile and manually remove the content.
About a week have passed since the time the offensive content was published until the moment it was removed. It took at worst a couple hours to the offender publish it. So DMCA have little impact on the offender which feel all that delay as an incentive to publish more offensive material.
TOS and DMCA already give companies the right to unilaterally remove content they fell offensive, they could develop software as good as spam/virus filters to remove such content. But those companies are lazy they only act if obligated.
So, more content is violated each day, protected by that lazy companies.
The mistakes? Since all violations are only threated after complaints imagine the pile of complaints an underpaid guy have to deal each day. That can't be a intellectual job but a mechanical one, which only care to check if all fields are filled.
If you care about freedom of speech check how the internet company you're using deals with copyright violations. If they don't act proactively any complaint about you will go to the same pile of all those copyright violations and it's likely to be removed by a guy who probably can't say if Beethoven is alive or not.
Here's a story: The original classic painting "Spirit of '76", originally created by Willard in the 1860's, is owned by the town of Marblehead. According to this article, the town has recently attempted to control copies of this work (see http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/200 7/04/13/town_holds_on_to_spirit/)
Of course the town can control access to the original, physical work, and even prevent cameras in the building where it is located. But it seems to me that the original image is in the public domain, and therefore any faithful copy may be published without need for permission from anyone.
Someone from Marblehead - feel free to comment.
I feel like death on a soda cracker.
all publications* ever published* which I* hold* copyrights to*, which are all in existance*. This notice is (c symbol) me. Rawr*.
A U.S. district court issued a decision in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. that indicates that copying a stock image of the Mona Lisa would likely not violate the law.
slashdot was a NEWS place.
I'd much rather have the law changed so that I simply have rights, rather than making us invent technological boondoggles that will probably mismark things half the time. That way, because I have rights by default, there's no need to keep track of them.
Otherwise, you can already just license your stuff under, say, the Creative Commons (for which there are already nice logos and such).
Besides, what would be the point of your system? Half the time, authors and companies don't want you to have any rights at all. Me? I'd much rather you "steal" my ideas outright. And don't bother giving me attribution, I don't want it.
(Checks 'Post Anonymously' just to be consistent.)
What you need is a signed id3 tag with that info, not DRM. ID3 tags containing an md5sum of the work (audio track, ebook, jpeg, what have you).
Preferrably, appended to the file itself, so when the file makes the rounds, so does the copyright holder information.
Further, this should be made *MANDATORY* by law on any electronic work that claims copyright.
This would be a very good thing for all except the MAFIAA -
It would serve several causes:
1. It would paint a big mother of a "SUE ME" target on the forehead of any publishing house attempting copyfraud.
2. Indy artists, listen carefully: this would allow anyone to easily get in touch (read: PAY) with the copyright holder.
A signed, reliable and easily-verifyable-by-joe-consumer link to a direct-to-artist
Paypal account, directly in the id3. This would serve to maximize goodwill payment by a nontrivial subgroup of sharers who do want to pay the artists, quite possibly live elsewhere in the world where US copyright law is the least of their worries, and simply do not want their money to end up in the wrong hands.
(Same thing in non-signed and non-easily-verifyable id3 tags is simply an invitation for "nigerian" fraud).
3. In a small sense this would also be good for the MAFIAA (it would make it easier for people to legally license something they want to use, thus increasing the percentage of people who actually do so, however, this may or may not (pro'lly not) be offset by the fact that item [2] above may lose them money by circumventing them and [1] may lose them money for works they are currently profiting off copyfraud from.
-
That's interesting, but you need far more than that.
In a sense, you need to break free from the idea of digital signatures, except for signing the data in the tag itself. Media can be transcoded, edited, remixed, users can add custom file information, and all or part of the content could be used as part of a larger work. Perhaps the media will be sent over broadcast, or a streaming service. Ideally, after investigating how all of these processes work and what can realistically be achieved, as well as what is the correct thing to achieve, there can be some solution that takes all of these things into account. This might involve a common, open-source, core application shipping with all popular operating systems that enabled management and querying of this information, freely available, patent-free libraries for consumer electronics devices, and a recognition on the part of the public that this marking scheme is a good thing. That it supports artists, and it supports them and their own works. Perhaps it even provides benefits, such as connecting to an online repository of information providing further details about the author and links to their other works, maybe even to online stores they approve of and sell through. Most importantly, that it is not a technology that imposes any restrictions on them at all - the information is there, and they are still responsible for their own decisions.
You're a fucking filthy scalper. I'm sure your parents would be so proud.
If the additions to the original work consist of original creative expression, then yes. If nothing but 'sweat of the brow', then no.
See Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel.
I realize that I'm replying twice to the same post here, and I do apologize, but I wanted to respond to one other point.
I don't think that rights marking would be bad for the *AA agencies. It should not hurt them to mark their content, nor should it hurt them for independent artists to mark theirs. If in fact this does hurt their bottom line, one could only assume that it is because their current licensing model (e.g. SoundExchange might be a little bit questionable, based on what I have read). But there are also benefits for the *AA agencies, too. Making popular content and associated rights easier to identify could make finding new talent easier.
I think if we are to truly believe that the members who form these agencies are suffering in the digital age they should be the first to adopt and even drive technologies that at the very least make content rights visible. What is important in that process is that we do not allow them to bastardize any proposal into something that actually imposes restrictions or even takes such actions as reporting violations, which would effectively kill any marking project.
The value in digital rights marking is to provide the information. Society must be further presented a positive value proposition in respecting the marked rights in order for content creators to benefit - and that is a much larger issue. I for one do not believe the majority of people today understand what copyright means and why it exists. Generally I think that most people also believe that respecting rights held by commercial entities benefits original artists very little. These issues need to be addressed, and they will not be addressed by adding a marking scheme. But the marking scheme can provide a foundation for change.
Speaking of 'ignorance is no excuse':
s/sediment/sentiment/
s/surounding/surrounding/
s/chalenged/challenged/
s/coledge/college/
s/clrear/clear/
s/willig/willing/
And those are just the spelling errors...
Well, I don't know about the US, but here in GB a new printed edition of a PD work enjoys a 20 year copyright. That means that if I were to input a piece of PD Beethoven unchanged into Lilypond, the output would be my copyright for a short period.
If I were to rearrange this Beethoven, perhaps making a simpler version for beginning pianists, then this would be a significant change and I would get a full life+70 copyright on it.
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
Pah! You have been misled! The lizards, along with "the REAL conspiracy", the girl scouts, death incarnate, Hitler's secret son, the killer bees, rap music, the four horsemen of the apocalypse, the IRS, undead Elvis and Satan are all just another layer of conspiracies hiding the TRUE real power behind the power... You have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
According to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corporation, scanning a public domain image isn't sufficient to establish copyright on the result, even if considerable skill and expertise is required.
All we need to do to end this kind of fraud is to harmonize our laws with the EU and grant copyright of these works to the people claiming ownership! ;)
>> In a sense, you need to break free from the idea of digital signatures, except for signing the data in the tag itself.
Yes, and if pigs could fly.
Since
[a] Most media uses lossy codecs that effectively modify the core data in question
[b] You're designing this for future lossy codecs that are not invented yet.
I'd be happy if we had said signed id3 tags on the exact-md5-originals, since that is something we *can do right now*, and add additional possibly dodgy (false-positives-wise) stuff for derivate recoded versions later, given we can get it to work.
I'd rather not hang the easily-done former by our (debatable) (future) ability to achieve the latter.
I don't support the notion that says "The wright brothers should never have invented something less than a Boeing 747". If they'd have had to start that high, we wouldn't be flying. Introduce the first level of useful tech, then evolve it with time. The everything-or-nothing approach is the worst enemy of getting anything out the door.
-
You're arguing my point:
:)
[a] Most media uses lossy codecs that effectively modify the core data in question
[b] You're designing this for future lossy codecs that are not invented yet.
The idea is not to protect the media. The idea of the digital signature is to protect the assertions of the rights holder given in the tag. Maybe there is some kind of hash or summary of the original "media" part of the file they originally signed, but at the end of the day that may gradually become irrelevant as the work is transcoded or perhaps re-used in part of another.
Conventional thinking has to be set aside when we examine "what are we ultimately trying to achieve here?". Maybe you're completely right, but I think now we're arguing technicalities whereas I'd rather discuss the principle rather than derive a solution via a thread on Slashdot
Thanks for responding though. I am certainly glad people are interested!
Yes and no.
We're both suggesting the same be done, only you're discussing what I suggested be "Phase B" (suggesting doing everything in a single phase), whereas I was suggesting the trivial bit that would rake in a substantial part of the benefits be done first and soon, and the more elaborate part regarding how this tag propagates to derived works be worked up in a later revision.
I'd rather the former be available at t=1 and the latter at t=3 than all of it be available at t=2.5
As an interesting sidenote, I haven't examined the recent itunes tags (the very talked-about apple-publicizing with-your-email unencrypted tags), but do they in any form
[a] contain some kind of checksum of the audio stream in the aac file in question?
[b] contain any mention of the actual copyright holder? (not to be confused with artist, which is doubtlessly there...)
-
I'm a victim of it. Someone claimed my work as their own, and then got their best friend (who happened to be a lawyer) to write an opinion letter to back that claim up, and then got law enforcement to come after me... for me making copies of my own work! Needless to say, the investigation went nowhere... after a whole lot of legal bills. But because this was not in civil court I couldn't come after him for my attorney fees. And the law enforcement investigation never got as far as an arrest, so I couldn't sue the cops for wrongful arrest, either.
Beware, copyfraud is out there and can hurt you. There should be some harsh civil and perhaps criminal penalties for anyone who does that kind of thing. This guy who did it to me should have gone to prison, except there doesn't seem to be a law that he broke. He couldn't even be caught for making false statements to the police because he had a (incorrect) opinion letter. In fact, in cases where there someone instigates a criminal investigation with reckless disregard for the truth of who really has copyright, the person who instigated it, and perhaps even the LEOs investigating, should face harsh penalties.
I think the idea fails in the same way that DRM fails in that if someone can see the data, they can reproduce it. I suppose it might be feasible to make every last bit of data signed under a DRM scheme to make it difficult to copy without removing the DRM. Unfortunately, if you wanted to modify this piece of work, you would also need a closed system to do the modifications for you, otherwise, the only way you could use portions of the world would be if each piece of the encoding was already under its a separate DRM signature. Next, if you wanted to mix forms of it, you would need all various forms of encoding to be supported in a way that the user could not figure out. This is more preposterous than the current DRM scheme we have. You cannot stop someone from taking a hammer to something in their possession without forcibly restraining them from doing so. There's also the likelihood that the person with the hammer is strong, smart, or agile enough to get around such restraints. Regardless, assuming you find the philosopher's stone and are omnipotent and can force everyone to use such a scheme, there is still the issue that everyone who wants to use this information must be given access to every different kind of black box that plays each and every different kind of data. So, you now have added a large level of inefficiency to display each piece of media simply to preserve the attribution. There are already systems that allows people to attribute works to their authors, be it from citations and metadata. However, these systems only work when the users follow the rules. Unlike ridiculous DRM schemes, they don't bloat everyone's experience who wishes to view the material. Unlike ridiculous DRM schemes, they don't attempt to achieve the impossible. An widely used open tagging format might be useful, but there will never be a way to stop every last person from taking a hammer to it and removing such information.
While the majority of the concept presented here is on actual copyright claims,there is also a growing trend of inclusive scientific papers on research results in search engine (High Rankings)being sold without disclosing that what they charge 39.95 for is free and in the public domain elsewhere.These are documents that are listed in related results after clicking on a main search,highly ranked,without any claim of copyright,and yet are being sold to those dumb enough to not realize it is in the public domain.This must be legal as no claims are being made,but seems restrictive on scientific research as it slows the process in finding what is in the public domain without blind alleys and padding research bills with replicated copies of payments of purchases of public domain "purchases".Science in all fields can do without additional fraud opportunities.
MYSTERY
The idea is not to prevent removing of the mark. The idea is to provide the information in the first place, without placing unreasonable expectations upon it backed solely by some artificial technical enforcement, given that as you rightly state these can and will be circumvented anyway. The only protection you can realistically have is a digital signature verifying that the piece of the rights mark you originally added had not later been modified.
There is no black box that would manage this data. There would need to be an open standard unencumbered by IP, with an open-source reference library for working with the information, and use of this standard and tool set across many platforms including media editing and production tools, media players, operating systems, distribution technologies, and so forth. That's a big challenge, but maybe with the right planning and the right understanding of what we want to achieve we can move in that direction so that at some point in the future we can start to see the rewards of our work.
There is no perfect solution to this problem. I think that a successful solution will acknowledge and embrace that fact in such a way that recognizes the core goals are to make rights information widely available, even if without guarantee, in order to inform people in making their own decisions. A widely adopted method of providing information is better than no information at all, or almost as bad, a largely fragmented solution which purports to solve the problem but in reality few people are aware of and which is not universally applicable.
If you browse through some of my other posts on this thread I think you'll get a better understanding of my thoughts. I think there is an almost intractable idea on any topic around rights that there has to be enforcement and artificial protection mechanisms. I don't believe that is true. In fact, I believe that is what will ultimately kill (and does kill today) existing digital rights systems.
...is cut off. How does it end?
Anyways, I didn't mean to imply that a collection of "everything" was a creative and copyrightable act. Thanks for the citations.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
While we're on this subject - well, close enough, anyway - can anyone enlighten me as to whether copyright can be transferred without payment or other compensation? For example, if Slashdot decided to claim all our contributions as its own property - just because they appear on its Web site - would that hold up? How about Amazon, which invites all and sundry to contribute reviews, and claims that those reviews then become its "property" although it offers no payment for them?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
...Netcraft confirms it.
I am not a lawyer, but this stuff seems to me to be fraud, if the company knows that they are making false statements. Suppose I set up a booth by the side of a public road and put up a sign that says that by federal law you must either take a different road or negotiate a passage fee with me. That's fraud, and surely I'd be rightly arrested for it. Well, in the case of false copyright statements, someone is telling us that by federal law they must either refrain from copying or negotiate a license fee with them. If the company knows the statements to be false, that seems to me like fraud with an intention either to restrain competition (by preventing copying) or to profit directly (by selling license fees).
Criminal prosecution doesn't seem likely, though, because it would be hard to prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that the company knew the statements were fraudulent. Maybe, though, a class action lawsuit alleging that the company made statements that they should have known are false and made them in order to restrain competition or profit would be possible, the afflicted class being all the people who bought the item and who refrained from exercising their legal rights to copy as a result of the false statements. Maybe this can't be done--I am not a lawyer.
My personal bugbear are the false statements at the beginnings of videos which say that all copying is prohibited. No, that is false in the U.S., since only copying in excess of fair use is prohibited. Likewise, statements that only home use is permitted are false in the U.S., since copyright law explicitly allows the showing of films for instructional purpose in a non-profit educational institution. I suppose they might try to weasel out of this by saying that the company, not the law, is doing the prohibiting. Seems shaky to me, but I am not a lawyer.
Is there any law against offering legal advice that one knows or should know to be inaccurate?
Yeah, I know; you'd think that the term "fraud" would apply. But I've never heard or read about any publisher ever being convicted and fined for a false copyright claim. Anyone know of a case where this happened?
If convictions and fines don't ever happen, it's "legal" in the obvious practical sense. And publishers certainly seem to have no fear of prosecution. If you look at editions of old literature or music, you almost always see copyright claims, with no hint that it might be only a copyright on that particular physical rendition of the material. Publishers almost always claim "copyright" with no qualifications. Sometimes not even a date.
Myself, I'd like to see a publisher prosecuted for fraud for such claims. It might be a useful precedent, to convince them that maybe they shouldn't lie so much about what they claim to own.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Congress in American history to pass laws preventing corruption by corrupt businesses?
Fat Chance.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
File name based detection got the RIAA in trouble. File size is merely the bitrate times the length. A lot of these sites already take user history into account, as they allow 3 or fewer strikes before they ban a user. I don't see how downloads per hour would help. HTTP Referer is subject to joe jobs.
But here's why service providers don't take an active role: It appears that a more proactive service provider might be more likely to incur vicarious liability. Under U.S. law, a behind being sat on is covered.
Surely you're not the guy for the job.
Take the file name of a recent movie; size over 200mb (not a trailer) or whatever your research finds out is too big that need to have a monetary value to compensate the effort; (un)usual file extension/codec/bitrate; recent account or with little published content; account name matches accounts already used for violations; hundreds downloads in a few hours; referrers to a site used to hide origin, with lot of "moviez" on it or well known for violations.
Weight all that factors, put a smart guy checking results (not completely automatic as RIAA try), repeat.
Soon the work of violators will be harder and they'll give up (move to another neighborhood or pay that 7$).
Internet companies don't care because they profit with ads or get eyeballs for their service.
About liability most TOS state, sometimes obscured in that document, the right of companies to remove whatever they want. The DMCA and ECPA also give protection for Good Samaritan acts.
The formats, things like page layout, fonts, placement of pictures, can be copyrighted separately from the words.
I dealt with this a work at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. The authors of the scientific journal articles, of course have access to their original work, but if they want to send out an article as it was published in Science, they have to pay! Science has copyrighted the presentation of the article. Yes, this is very weird, but it is quite possible the papers in question are copyright violations, not of Shakespeare, but of the presentation that was copyrighted. (The font, page placement would need to be different.)