Well, the patent's a total red herring, anyway, it has nothing to do with the raid. The government never said they were enforcing a patent, whether it's expired or not seems to have nothing to do with it.
The only evidence the article presents that no trademark was infringed is "a representative" of the manufacturer, via hearsay testimony from the owner of the store, both of whom presumably have some interest in claiming not to be breaking the trademark.
Unfortunately, the only evidence the article presents that a trademark was infringed was a spokesperson for DHS stating there was a complaint. There is a lot we don't know - it's quite possible the Magic Cube does infringe on Rubik's trademark. Contrary to the title of the/. article, it's not expired; they're running around suing people for violating it.
But, beyond that, nowhere in the article does it say Rubik was the one complaining. People just jumped to that conclusion. There is a live trademark on "Magic Cube" for a "manipulative puzzle" filed in December, 2001 by Atico, International. It would seem reasonable to me that Toysmith's product violates this trademark. There is no information in the AP article to conclude "no trademark was infringed," in fact the reporter seems to have done no research at all but calling DHS and the toy store operator. It's a terribly done article that is mostly about how weird it is that the people who enforce trademarks now work for DHS. But that's hardly new or news.
As did my enormous 15" Dell Inspiron 8100. Thankfully I've (relatively) slimmed down to a Thinkpad T42 and don't have to carry that ton of bricks around, anymore...
I have a Samsonite Rafter backpack and I love it. It has a ton of pockets, it's very sturdy, and doesn't scream "laptop bag" the way many of them do. It also has a lot of handy features like a special pocket for a music player with a headphone pass through. Froogle says $40-$60.
Galloping gnards! A water-powered computer?
on
Fluid Logic Chips
·
· Score: 1
Well, and except with Firefox update, I got this update late last night when it notified me of it - and this was the first anyone had heard of the problem. When was the last time we found out about a flaw in IE because Windows released a patch to fix it (as opposed to finally releasing a patch after six months of badgering)? Kudos to the Mozilla team for working proactively to fix this instead of hoping no one would notice or care.
I may be wrong about this (I haven't followed these cases closely enough, and SCO doesn't seem to be sticking with a totally consistant reasoning on all this), *but*...
My understanding of SCO's case against IBM is that IBM took code A (involving NUMA) and mixed it with code licensed from SCO (call that code B) and released it (call that combo Code C) which via some novel copyright theory now means that SCO also has an exclusive right to code A and so IBM no longer has the right to take code A and release it under the GPL for inclusion with Linux.
As far as I know, SCO isn't challenging the GPL directly in its IBM fight. Mostly its IBM case is, "We have the copyright to code B, because we got it from Novell, and your release of code A under the GPL is a violation of our copyrights of code B, because we now own the copyright to code A as well since you distributed it as code C. Oh, and, since you're still distributing code C after we told you to stop, and since we own the copyright to code B (since we bought it from Novell), you're clearly and unquestionably violating our copyright on code B, too."
Leaving aside the utterly laughable nature of their claim on code A, the lynchpin of SCO's case seems to be that they own the copyrights to code B. If they don't (i.e., if Novell does, which is what the judge here seems to be saying he thinks is the case), then IBM didn't violate copyrights by distributing code B after SCO told them to stop. Even worse (for SCO), even if you buy their ridiculous copyright threories on code A, if they don't own the copyright to code B to begin with, those fall apart, too.
So, in summary, if the courts say "Novell owns the copyrights to Unix, SCO doesn't," then I'd expect all other copyright-related defendants in all other cases (including IBM) to file for (and receive) summary dismissal in their copyright cases. If SCO doesn't have the copyrights, it doesn't have standing to sue for their illegal release, even if such release did occur illegally.
If anyone else understands this better than I, I would be very happy to have it clarified. But that's my understanding right now.
Beware: VNC and XP concurrent multiple users doesn't seem to work well together. The first time you connect, VNC gets connected to the currently logged in user, and trying to connect while any other desktop is up (even the "select user desktop") just gets you a black screen on VNC.
I haven't figured out a workaround for this. It's be *very* cool if VNC could connect to the virtual desktop of users not actually on the computer (so that one person could be physically logged in and the other could be logged in via VNC at the same time). But right now I'd be happy with a VNC that just connected all the time, and showed what was on the monitor.
Here's the dupe story, from November 3, 2002. I remembered it, too, surprised more people didn't jump on this:
An incredibly bizarre sort-of case mod: someone recreated the computer terminals from Terry Gilliam's Brazil, using an old Mac and a 1923 underwood typewriter.
I think the point is that it lets you perform this attack without being in the middle with a sniffer. The author figured out a way to significantly reduce the search space for the sequence number. Quoting from the article, "[Watson] noticed that the probability of guessing an acceptable sequence number is much higher than 1/2^32 because the receiving TCP implementation will accept any sequence number in a certain range (or 'window') of the expected sequence number. The window makes TCP reset attacks practicable."
Previously you had to have a packet sniffer in the middle to sniff the sequence and spoof it. Watson has pointed out a technique that allows you to guess the sequence in practical number of tries for connections that are long-lived (a few days).
He definitely had a hundred cups of coffee (implying a cost of $3/cup, since the refund was definitely $300). This was on my TiVo two nights ago, and I watched it with my wife.
That was actually a really enjoyable episode to watch with her, because she's a terrible coffee addict, and in the earlier bits where Fry is shaking and Jonesin' for coffee, I was able to say, "Hey, it's you!"
She can't stand me about coffee because I can drink six mugs a day for weeks and then suddenly stop with no ill effects. I don't think about it much, it doesn't bother me much, and sometimes I'll look up and say, "Wow, I haven't had coffee in a couple of weeks." But she carefully limits herself to two mugs a day and has a terrible physical addiction. She's always trying to "cut back" and getting grumpy because she hasn't had enough. Funny how different people have different responses that way.
As a pack-rat often wrestling with similar issues (I put out about six cubic feet on my "on call" trash pickup day yesterday, and still have a ton more), I can only share with you the wisest sentiment I've ever heard on reducing clutter:
"I will only have in my house things which I believe to be beautiful or know to be useful."
I still have a lot more to throw out, though. Bottom line, if you live in less than 4500 square feet, extra stuff is extra mess. If you want to live like a grownup, you need to get rid of all that crap.
Regardless of anything else, the US law governs the export of things from the US. Where they were created is of no consequence.
Imagine a piece of software written entirely in, say, Russia. While I'm no expert in Russian law, it's quite conceivable to me that this piece of software could be perfectly legal under Russian law to export to Syria. However, if an American had it, it could be illegal to export it to Syria from America.
So, if this piece of software was brought to the US from Russia, then exported to Syria, it would be in violation of US laws, even though it's perfectly legal to export that software to Syria from Russia, and the software wasn't created in the US.
The US can't say "No one anywhere can export Linux to Syria," because they don't have jurisdiction. The US can say "No one in America can export Linux to Syria," regardless of where it was written or any other facts, because they do have jurisdiction (leaving aside any questions of the constitutionality of these laws).
As a practical matter, as sphealey points out, many of the distributors of Linux (Linus, Red Hat, etc) reside in the US, and are subject to US law. Thus, Linux will generally conform to US export-control law because Linus doesn't want to go to jail and Red Hat doesn't want to go out of business. Certainly the US government couldn't keep some enterprising Russians from rexporting Linux, and they also couldn't prevent them from forking it and providing a product which violates US laws (such as, for example, the DMCA). But, as a practical matter, today, so many of the authors and distributors of Linux reside in the US that conformity with US law is an unofficial goal of Linux.
There is a similar (reverse) situation going on with the GIF patent. While the US patent behind the GIF image format expired in 2003, the European and Canadian ones won't expire until June, 2004. So, much open-source software, developed in the US, doesn't yet include GIF support because of the European patents. It's not because Europe suddenly has some extra US jurisdiction, but because the authors of these products do not consider it worth it to exclude European developers, or to have different distributions for different regions, etc.
Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, the difference is that some user at some point clicked an "OK" box on a bunch of legaleze he didn't read which said that a bunch of spyware was going to be installed on his computer.
Now, if that user wants to sue for fraud or somesuch, I'd be interested. I also think that's an intriguing way to try to legally invalidate click-through licenses. But as the law is now, it's perfectly legal to pop box that says "I'm going to monitor everything you do and change the ads you see," and if the user clicks "OK," it's, well, OK.
Worms, of course, have not as yet been polite enough to ask for permission before installing themselve. Thus the legal difference.
Actually, the question is whether he's allowed to. It's pretty well established at this time that there is no right to first sale for Digital Phonorecord Deliveries (DPDs). See, for example, this Duke Law and Technology Review article, which is entitled "THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND DIGITAL PHONORECORDS." It's two and a half years old, and its conclusion is, "While First Sale clearly allows an owner of a non-digital phonorecord format of this song, such as vinyl record and CD, to dispose of her copy through further distribution, First Sale is inapplicable to similar distributions of digital phonorecords because of the reproductions made during distribution and the ease in which infringing reproductions can be further distributed."
This isn't new, and it isn't groundbreaking. If this goes to court, he'll lose. He's either clueless about the law or looking for publicity (or conceivably both).
If it's not leasing, you're a commercial enterprise making copies for commercial gain which makes it not fair use so you need a license. I think you'd have a hard time saying in front of a judge, "Your honor, yes, I get paid for letting someone else listen to this music, but it's not leasing," anyway. I know I would.
I spilled a lot of (virtual) ink writing on this topic last week. Cringley's idea this time isn't that much different than last time - basically all of my previous objections still apply. It's still illegal to make a giant database to begin with, it's still illegal to rent CDs.
Yes, maybe you can turn it into a nonprofit, but I have to question whether you could get it past the courts (since I think it's pretty clear the intent of the law is to make stuff like this impossible) and besides which it'd be a lot harder to fund as a nonprofit.
Anyway, if you want to read a ton of reasons why this is illegal, check out the above link to last week's discussion.
Renting CDs in the US is agains the law. Period. Done. Next idea please, let's not kill billions of bits needlesslesly discussing yet another of Mr. Cringley's ideas which is obviously illegal.
Well, full disclosure, I haven't been with them in over a year and can't claim to have kept up too much with the details of what they're offering, now.
I'd say the big innovation we did was switching from $.99/track to the subscription model in 2000. We had a number of ideas for feature enhancements we could do after that. We wanted to provide the functionality of an interactive streaming service but provided by DPDs to fit within our licenses, for example, and had a lot of cool ideas for client/server integration that I think you're starting to see Apple actually implement. Unfortunately, after we were purchased in 2001, a combination of uncertainty and then a move the mp3.com technical platform kept us from implementing most of that while I was there. Just because we didn't have the resources to get it done didn't mean we weren't thinking about it.
Don't know what their plans are, now, moving forward, but I wish them luck.
I certainly agree with you on the reencode, though. LAME is a lot better than what we were originally using.
For example, Mp3.com beam-it doesn't apply, because the people involved aren't shareholders.
It doesn't matter who the copies are for, or whether the copies themselves would be fair use (they wouldn't be, in this case, either, but let's leave this aside for the moment). Basically anything a for-profit company does is presumed to be for profit. And when you copy a whole song for profit, according to the law, you have to get a license.
Mp3.com failed in court not because they were trying to make money from copies (though you could argue that that's the real motivation behind the RIAA lawsuit), they lost in court because they created an illegal public database of music.
This is closer to the truth than most assertions about the mp3.com case. But they got slapped with making copies for their gain. Fair use law pretty plainly shows, if you make the copies for your gain, it's not fair use. Even if the copies for mp3.com's subscribers or this company's shareholders would, of themselves, be fair use, as soon as the company makes those copies for its profit, it's not a fair use copy by the company. Judge Rakoff spends much of his opinion on the question of whether mp3.com's copies were fair use, as they asserted. He says, on the commercial test, "defendant does not dispute that its purpose is commercial," and, on the question whether it would harm the copyright holders' ability to future license their works, "defendant's activities on their face invade plaintiffs' statutory right to license their copyrighted sound recordings to others for reproduction." Both of these conclusions are clearly true about Mr. Cringley's company, even if the shareholders have a right to make 60 million "fair use" copies of a CD (which I'd assert they don't, but I don't have specific case law to back me up).
Slashdot Mirror
I believe it's so he didn't have to move the camera to keep the moon tracked.
Only if she's named "Magic Cube." :p
The only evidence the article presents that no trademark was infringed is "a representative" of the manufacturer, via hearsay testimony from the owner of the store, both of whom presumably have some interest in claiming not to be breaking the trademark.
Unfortunately, the only evidence the article presents that a trademark was infringed was a spokesperson for DHS stating there was a complaint. There is a lot we don't know - it's quite possible the Magic Cube does infringe on Rubik's trademark. Contrary to the title of the
But, beyond that, nowhere in the article does it say Rubik was the one complaining. People just jumped to that conclusion. There is a live trademark on "Magic Cube" for a "manipulative puzzle" filed in December, 2001 by Atico, International. It would seem reasonable to me that Toysmith's product violates this trademark. There is no information in the AP article to conclude "no trademark was infringed," in fact the reporter seems to have done no research at all but calling DHS and the toy store operator. It's a terribly done article that is mostly about how weird it is that the people who enforce trademarks now work for DHS. But that's hardly new or news.
As did my enormous 15" Dell Inspiron 8100. Thankfully I've (relatively) slimmed down to a Thinkpad T42 and don't have to carry that ton of bricks around, anymore...
I have a Samsonite Rafter backpack and I love it. It has a ton of pockets, it's very sturdy, and doesn't scream "laptop bag" the way many of them do. It also has a lot of handy features like a special pocket for a music player with a headphone pass through. Froogle says $40-$60.
Hey, it's the water powered computer from the Crunchly saga! The future is finally here!
There are many subsequent panels in this story line, if you follow the links at the bottom of the Jargon entries...
Well, and except with Firefox update, I got this update late last night when it notified me of it - and this was the first anyone had heard of the problem. When was the last time we found out about a flaw in IE because Windows released a patch to fix it (as opposed to finally releasing a patch after six months of badgering)? Kudos to the Mozilla team for working proactively to fix this instead of hoping no one would notice or care.
I may be wrong about this (I haven't followed these cases closely enough, and SCO doesn't seem to be sticking with a totally consistant reasoning on all this), *but*...
My understanding of SCO's case against IBM is that IBM took code A (involving NUMA) and mixed it with code licensed from SCO (call that code B) and released it (call that combo Code C) which via some novel copyright theory now means that SCO also has an exclusive right to code A and so IBM no longer has the right to take code A and release it under the GPL for inclusion with Linux.
As far as I know, SCO isn't challenging the GPL directly in its IBM fight. Mostly its IBM case is, "We have the copyright to code B, because we got it from Novell, and your release of code A under the GPL is a violation of our copyrights of code B, because we now own the copyright to code A as well since you distributed it as code C. Oh, and, since you're still distributing code C after we told you to stop, and since we own the copyright to code B (since we bought it from Novell), you're clearly and unquestionably violating our copyright on code B, too."
Leaving aside the utterly laughable nature of their claim on code A, the lynchpin of SCO's case seems to be that they own the copyrights to code B. If they don't (i.e., if Novell does, which is what the judge here seems to be saying he thinks is the case), then IBM didn't violate copyrights by distributing code B after SCO told them to stop. Even worse (for SCO), even if you buy their ridiculous copyright threories on code A, if they don't own the copyright to code B to begin with, those fall apart, too.
So, in summary, if the courts say "Novell owns the copyrights to Unix, SCO doesn't," then I'd expect all other copyright-related defendants in all other cases (including IBM) to file for (and receive) summary dismissal in their copyright cases. If SCO doesn't have the copyrights, it doesn't have standing to sue for their illegal release, even if such release did occur illegally.
If anyone else understands this better than I, I would be very happy to have it clarified. But that's my understanding right now.
Beware: VNC and XP concurrent multiple users doesn't seem to work well together. The first time you connect, VNC gets connected to the currently logged in user, and trying to connect while any other desktop is up (even the "select user desktop") just gets you a black screen on VNC.
I haven't figured out a workaround for this. It's be *very* cool if VNC could connect to the virtual desktop of users not actually on the computer (so that one person could be physically logged in and the other could be logged in via VNC at the same time). But right now I'd be happy with a VNC that just connected all the time, and showed what was on the monitor.
Here's the dupe story, from November 3, 2002. I remembered it, too, surprised more people didn't jump on this:
An incredibly bizarre sort-of case mod: someone recreated the computer terminals from Terry Gilliam's Brazil, using an old Mac and a 1923 underwood typewriter.
I think the point is that it lets you perform this attack without being in the middle with a sniffer. The author figured out a way to significantly reduce the search space for the sequence number. Quoting from the article, "[Watson] noticed that the probability of guessing an acceptable sequence number is much higher than 1/2^32 because the receiving TCP implementation will accept any sequence number in a certain range (or 'window') of the expected sequence number. The window makes TCP reset attacks practicable."
Previously you had to have a packet sniffer in the middle to sniff the sequence and spoof it. Watson has pointed out a technique that allows you to guess the sequence in practical number of tries for connections that are long-lived (a few days).
He definitely had a hundred cups of coffee (implying a cost of $3/cup, since the refund was definitely $300). This was on my TiVo two nights ago, and I watched it with my wife.
That was actually a really enjoyable episode to watch with her, because she's a terrible coffee addict, and in the earlier bits where Fry is shaking and Jonesin' for coffee, I was able to say, "Hey, it's you!"
She can't stand me about coffee because I can drink six mugs a day for weeks and then suddenly stop with no ill effects. I don't think about it much, it doesn't bother me much, and sometimes I'll look up and say, "Wow, I haven't had coffee in a couple of weeks." But she carefully limits herself to two mugs a day and has a terrible physical addiction. She's always trying to "cut back" and getting grumpy because she hasn't had enough. Funny how different people have different responses that way.
No, but I did wonder when you wrote :'(" why you drew a guy with a beard smoking a cigar...
As a pack-rat often wrestling with similar issues (I put out about six cubic feet on my "on call" trash pickup day yesterday, and still have a ton more), I can only share with you the wisest sentiment I've ever heard on reducing clutter:
"I will only have in my house things which I believe to be beautiful or know to be useful."
I still have a lot more to throw out, though. Bottom line, if you live in less than 4500 square feet, extra stuff is extra mess. If you want to live like a grownup, you need to get rid of all that crap.
Regardless of anything else, the US law governs the export of things from the US. Where they were created is of no consequence.
Imagine a piece of software written entirely in, say, Russia. While I'm no expert in Russian law, it's quite conceivable to me that this piece of software could be perfectly legal under Russian law to export to Syria. However, if an American had it, it could be illegal to export it to Syria from America.
So, if this piece of software was brought to the US from Russia, then exported to Syria, it would be in violation of US laws, even though it's perfectly legal to export that software to Syria from Russia, and the software wasn't created in the US.
The US can't say "No one anywhere can export Linux to Syria," because they don't have jurisdiction. The US can say "No one in America can export Linux to Syria," regardless of where it was written or any other facts, because they do have jurisdiction (leaving aside any questions of the constitutionality of these laws).
As a practical matter, as sphealey points out, many of the distributors of Linux (Linus, Red Hat, etc) reside in the US, and are subject to US law. Thus, Linux will generally conform to US export-control law because Linus doesn't want to go to jail and Red Hat doesn't want to go out of business. Certainly the US government couldn't keep some enterprising Russians from rexporting Linux, and they also couldn't prevent them from forking it and providing a product which violates US laws (such as, for example, the DMCA). But, as a practical matter, today, so many of the authors and distributors of Linux reside in the US that conformity with US law is an unofficial goal of Linux.
There is a similar (reverse) situation going on with the GIF patent. While the US patent behind the GIF image format expired in 2003, the European and Canadian ones won't expire until June, 2004. So, much open-source software, developed in the US, doesn't yet include GIF support because of the European patents. It's not because Europe suddenly has some extra US jurisdiction, but because the authors of these products do not consider it worth it to exclude European developers, or to have different distributions for different regions, etc.
Yeah, I recently was looking for the NATO phonetic alphabet and Googled for "hotel lima golf" as the first three things that popped into my head.
:)
Unfortunately, what came back was a bunch of pages advertising hotels with golf courses in Lima, Peru. So that technique doesn't work all the time.
...And, of course, if SSH refuses to start, no one can use it to login into your system without authorization! Problem solved!
Assuming your question isn't rhetorical, the difference is that some user at some point clicked an "OK" box on a bunch of legaleze he didn't read which said that a bunch of spyware was going to be installed on his computer.
Now, if that user wants to sue for fraud or somesuch, I'd be interested. I also think that's an intriguing way to try to legally invalidate click-through licenses. But as the law is now, it's perfectly legal to pop box that says "I'm going to monitor everything you do and change the ads you see," and if the user clicks "OK," it's, well, OK.
Worms, of course, have not as yet been polite enough to ask for permission before installing themselve. Thus the legal difference.
Actually, the question is whether he's allowed to. It's pretty well established at this time that there is no right to first sale for Digital Phonorecord Deliveries (DPDs). See, for example, this Duke Law and Technology Review article, which is entitled "THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND DIGITAL PHONORECORDS." It's two and a half years old, and its conclusion is, "While First Sale clearly allows an owner of a non-digital phonorecord format of this song, such as vinyl record and CD, to dispose of her copy through further distribution, First Sale is inapplicable to similar distributions of digital phonorecords because of the reproductions made during distribution and the ease in which infringing reproductions can be further distributed."
This isn't new, and it isn't groundbreaking. If this goes to court, he'll lose. He's either clueless about the law or looking for publicity (or conceivably both).
If it's not leasing, you're a commercial enterprise making copies for commercial gain which makes it not fair use so you need a license. I think you'd have a hard time saying in front of a judge, "Your honor, yes, I get paid for letting someone else listen to this music, but it's not leasing," anyway. I know I would.
I spilled a lot of (virtual) ink writing on this topic last week. Cringley's idea this time isn't that much different than last time - basically all of my previous objections still apply. It's still illegal to make a giant database to begin with, it's still illegal to rent CDs.
Yes, maybe you can turn it into a nonprofit, but I have to question whether you could get it past the courts (since I think it's pretty clear the intent of the law is to make stuff like this impossible) and besides which it'd be a lot harder to fund as a nonprofit.
Anyway, if you want to read a ton of reasons why this is illegal, check out the above link to last week's discussion.
Yes, if you read the law, there is a specific exclusion for loan by nonprofits.
Yes, it may be possible to restate Mr. Cringley's idea as a nonprofit, although it'd probably then be very hard to get it funded.
Look, it's really simple.
Renting CDs in the US is agains the law. Period. Done. Next idea please, let's not kill billions of bits needlesslesly discussing yet another of Mr. Cringley's ideas which is obviously illegal.
That's a good point - P2P is also good for legitimate content that is very large and no one wants to pay to distribute.
Well, full disclosure, I haven't been with them in over a year and can't claim to have kept up too much with the details of what they're offering, now.
I'd say the big innovation we did was switching from $.99/track to the subscription model in 2000. We had a number of ideas for feature enhancements we could do after that. We wanted to provide the functionality of an interactive streaming service but provided by DPDs to fit within our licenses, for example, and had a lot of cool ideas for client/server integration that I think you're starting to see Apple actually implement. Unfortunately, after we were purchased in 2001, a combination of uncertainty and then a move the mp3.com technical platform kept us from implementing most of that while I was there. Just because we didn't have the resources to get it done didn't mean we weren't thinking about it.
Don't know what their plans are, now, moving forward, but I wish them luck.
I certainly agree with you on the reencode, though. LAME is a lot better than what we were originally using.
For example, Mp3.com beam-it doesn't apply, because the people involved aren't shareholders.
It doesn't matter who the copies are for, or whether the copies themselves would be fair use (they wouldn't be, in this case, either, but let's leave this aside for the moment). Basically anything a for-profit company does is presumed to be for profit. And when you copy a whole song for profit, according to the law, you have to get a license.
Mp3.com failed in court not because they were trying to make money from copies (though you could argue that that's the real motivation behind the RIAA lawsuit), they lost in court because they created an illegal public database of music.
This is closer to the truth than most assertions about the mp3.com case. But they got slapped with making copies for their gain. Fair use law pretty plainly shows, if you make the copies for your gain, it's not fair use. Even if the copies for mp3.com's subscribers or this company's shareholders would, of themselves, be fair use, as soon as the company makes those copies for its profit, it's not a fair use copy by the company. Judge Rakoff spends much of his opinion on the question of whether mp3.com's copies were fair use, as they asserted. He says, on the commercial test, "defendant does not dispute that its purpose is commercial," and, on the question whether it would harm the copyright holders' ability to future license their works, "defendant's activities on their face invade plaintiffs' statutory right to license their copyrighted sound recordings to others for reproduction." Both of these conclusions are clearly true about Mr. Cringley's company, even if the shareholders have a right to make 60 million "fair use" copies of a CD (which I'd assert they don't, but I don't have specific case law to back me up).