Ok, here's the opposite point of view. I've not found any copies of these laws online, and cannot get paper copies since I am not a US citizen. However, here are some links to articles on GNU.org that seem to clear things up. Remember that the writers have researched these extensively.
Reevaluating Copyright: This covers the constitutional intent of copyright. That is, that copyright is a limited monopoly granted to an author over their work for a limited period.
Words to Avoid: Just over halfway down, there's a section talking about how the term IP came to be used. Notice the sentance about the US legal system.
Think about it. This is a press release from the MPAA (now proud partial owners of the United States of America, land of the free^H^H^H^H licensed). I'm betting the only truth in it was that a legal Linux DVD player did exist, except they forgot to mention that they were trying to make it stop existing.
Yes, but saying that Napster has just caused their CD sales to grow more slowly is, as you said, impossible to prove. Therefor, it cannot be used as evidence against Napster in court. However, if what I understand is right, the fact that CD sales grew faster this year than they did last year seems to indicate that Napster is not hurting the record industry, where industry is pronounced cartel as competition goes to zero.
Seriously, the point that Napster is just a tool needs to be brought up repeatedly in this court case. After all, that's all the service is. If some Napster execs were encouraging people to illegally copy music, charge them. If some Napster users were illegally copying music outside of the bounds of fair use trading, charge them. (Although I'm sure the record industry will conveniently forget about the fair use aspect and just charge everyone)
Napster can be used to legally or illegally exchange music. It can be used to promote individual artists or torture RIAA goons. Oh, wait. Those last two are synonomous. Oh, well.:-P
There is no such thing as intellectual property. (Patents may count as that in some sense, but they too are a limited monopoly) Copyright is not about ownership, its about just that. Copy rights. The idea that copyright is ownership has been recently publicized very loudly by various big publication industries, with the obvious effect. But I don't think they've managed to push any legislation through yet that changes that.... At least, I hope not.
However, you are right about the loss of profit thing. But that doesn't stop the music industry from screaming about it. And, IIRC, they're also claiming a loss of profit growth. As in, we would have sold MORE CDs without Napster.
They do that, they'll slowly go back to being a network effectively isolated from the rest of the internet. And I don't think they want that. Remember that the internet routes around damage. AOL is coming closer and closer to qualifying as damage.
We get enough buffer overflows by accident. I'm sure that setting one up intentionally shouldn't be too hard.;-) And if everything else fails, just boycott the AOL protocol entirely and use ICQ or Yahoo instead.
Why bother clearing them out? Just call them your legal department, get them suits, and put them in front of typwriters. I'm sure that within an hour, one will have written up a case that any court in the country will accept under the current screwed-up copyright laws.
After all, that's how the DMCA got written, isn't it? I can't see any way that could've been written by a marginally sentient lifeform...
Hey, remember that all the really bad stuff that happened so far has happened while Clinton's been in the White House. So I'm betting that Gore is going to be just as bad, no? I'd say the best bet would be for geeks to start a massive campaign finance reform movement. Use the word "bribery" liberally and people will probably take notice.
I don't know who walked out, but I'm guessing that they'd been informed ahead of time by their record labels that they had to do that or they'd be in violation of contract.
From what I understand, the current Patent laws are changed little from the originals. The way the patent office enforces them, however, is extremely different. (Business model patents? Come on!) Copyright, on the other hand, has been steadily twisted since about the end of World War II to a form that benefits the entertainment industry. They've backed this up by a massive media push of the concept "copyright = ownership." It doesn't. Copyright is just that. Copy rights.
Indeed if this didn't happen the entire music industry would probably fall apart...
Well, yeah. How long has it been since you heard an original song?;-) But seriously, it wouldn't be a problem for the RIAA. They can probably use their contracts to wrench permission out of their artists. And I suspect they would just roll over any independant artist who objected.
By my understanding, it works as follows. Its a derivative work if I take the code for the game and modify it. If, however, I just like the gameplay and build something similar, its not necessarily a derived work... I'm afraid I'm not incredibly clear on this. For example, most fanfic is a derived work, but a piece of fiction set in a similar universe wouldn't be.
Actually, it seems to stem from an almost global lack of understanding of the ideas behind copyright. A work inspired by a copyrighted work (not directly modified from, that's a derivative work) is fine. If I were a composer and heard a catchy musical sequence, I could build a variation on it into my next song. But it looks to me like now too many people are buying the "Intellectual Property" arguments. Copyright does not inherently equal ownership. It is just what the name says. Copying rights.
Perhaps if we get the Greeks/Hebrews to sue the American government for "imitating" the form of government invented by their ancestors, we'll see some clueing-in?;-)
I haven't read your entire comment yet, but I'm definitely going to. I'm afraid the comment where I got the link was too far back to find, but here's some details to help you. (Its late here, I'll try to find it again tomorrow) The lawsuit that I got a link to the ruling of was Novell suing a reseller (but not a Novell authorized reseller). The case was something like the Napster one, in that the reseller was pretty obviously scum and was taking advantage of Novell to make a buck. (Some Napster execs seem to be... not entirely above-board) He was buying full copies of Novell software, then buying the upgrades and selling the upgrades with quite a profit margin. Novell sued him under (IIRC) two counts of trademark infringement (he'd used their logo in ads) and copyright infringement. He lost on the trademark charges, but the judge ruled that he did indeed own the software he'd bought and that the EULA of the upgrade software was invalid for about ten different reasons.
And that's just one such case. A sale can be a license, but by my understanding, it must be made clear to the consumer and I think they have to sign the agreement...
(Apologies for not being able to find the text of the ruling. I wish I'd bookmarked it...)
No, buying a copy of a copyrighted work does not equal licensing. It equals OWNERSHIP. You can't distribute more copies, but you own that copy. At least, that's my understanding of copyright law, and I've read a couple of legal rulings linked to (very kindly) by another Slashdot poster that back it up.
And some of us, due to the MINOR stumbling block of not being US citizens and/or being too young to be paid attention to (only by a year in my case, but still...) can't do anything else about it. I plan to contact some of my government reps about it as soon as I'm able to vote, I also plan to donate to the EFF if they allow donations from Canada and are willing to help in legal cases up here. (Haven't investigated that throughly yet)
Ok, I've read this comment a bunch of times, and I must conclude that the poster does not know what this site is. If you've got a problem with an editor, take it up with CmdrTaco, who just happens to control the content on this site. Slashdot content can be reasonbly expected to be biased by his personal views, and I'd certantly consider it reasonable for him to throw comments like this about Bush and decidedly Clinton-like behavior (apologies, but I couldn't resist!) in. If you don't like the content, as I said, complain to Taco instead of bitching and moaning about things to look wise and intelligent to the moderators. Or go start your own site, or apply to be an editor here or somewhere else.
The entire concept of copyright, odd as this may sound, was intended to benefit those who appreciate the art in question. The point was to give the copyright holder a limited monopoly on their work, so that they could make money off it or whatever, in an attempt to encourage them to produce more works. Its only recently that that's been turned into "copyright == ownership." When I buy a videotape, according to the original copyright law, I now own a copy of that work. I cannot copy it except for personal use (increase the number of copies in circulation) except as permitted by Fair Use.
At least, that's how I understand copyright. If someone else has some evidence as to other interpretations of the pre-World War laws, please post links or whatever.
Allow me to remind you that, in a good number of cases, the media is the agressors in this case. A lot of major American media outlets are owned, however indirectly, by the RIAA and/or MPAA members. Interesting that they've been screaming about Napster and how its so horrible, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, here's the opposite point of view. I've not found any copies of these laws online, and cannot get paper copies since I am not a US citizen. However, here are some links to articles on GNU.org that seem to clear things up. Remember that the writers have researched these extensively.
Reevaluating Copyright: This covers the constitutional intent of copyright. That is, that copyright is a limited monopoly granted to an author over their work for a limited period.
Words to Avoid: Just over halfway down, there's a section talking about how the term IP came to be used. Notice the sentance about the US legal system.
-RickHunter
Nah. It'll go to at least one picosecond before the end of the universe. By that time, we'll have AIs trading MP3s for us. ^_^
-RickHunter
Think about it. This is a press release from the MPAA (now proud partial owners of the United States of America, land of the free^H^H^H^H licensed). I'm betting the only truth in it was that a legal Linux DVD player did exist, except they forgot to mention that they were trying to make it stop existing.
-RickHunter
Yes, but what if that person clones themselves? Would that be piracy?
-RickHunter
Yes, but saying that Napster has just caused their CD sales to grow more slowly is, as you said, impossible to prove. Therefor, it cannot be used as evidence against Napster in court. However, if what I understand is right, the fact that CD sales grew faster this year than they did last year seems to indicate that Napster is not hurting the record industry, where industry is pronounced cartel as competition goes to zero.
-RickHunter
Its a tool not a torture device for RIAA goons.
Awww.... Then why have I been supporting it? ;-)
Seriously, the point that Napster is just a tool needs to be brought up repeatedly in this court case. After all, that's all the service is. If some Napster execs were encouraging people to illegally copy music, charge them. If some Napster users were illegally copying music outside of the bounds of fair use trading, charge them. (Although I'm sure the record industry will conveniently forget about the fair use aspect and just charge everyone)
Napster can be used to legally or illegally exchange music. It can be used to promote individual artists or torture RIAA goons. Oh, wait. Those last two are synonomous. Oh, well. :-P
-RickHunter
There is no such thing as intellectual property. (Patents may count as that in some sense, but they too are a limited monopoly) Copyright is not about ownership, its about just that. Copy rights. The idea that copyright is ownership has been recently publicized very loudly by various big publication industries, with the obvious effect. But I don't think they've managed to push any legislation through yet that changes that.... At least, I hope not.
However, you are right about the loss of profit thing. But that doesn't stop the music industry from screaming about it. And, IIRC, they're also claiming a loss of profit growth. As in, we would have sold MORE CDs without Napster.
-RickHunter
And people claim that windows is less obscure than the Unix command line.... ;-)
-RickHunter
They do that, they'll slowly go back to being a network effectively isolated from the rest of the internet. And I don't think they want that. Remember that the internet routes around damage. AOL is coming closer and closer to qualifying as damage.
-RickHunter
We get enough buffer overflows by accident. I'm sure that setting one up intentionally shouldn't be too hard. ;-) And if everything else fails, just boycott the AOL protocol entirely and use ICQ or Yahoo instead.
-RickHunter
Why bother clearing them out? Just call them your legal department, get them suits, and put them in front of typwriters. I'm sure that within an hour, one will have written up a case that any court in the country will accept under the current screwed-up copyright laws.
After all, that's how the DMCA got written, isn't it? I can't see any way that could've been written by a marginally sentient lifeform...
-RickHunter
Hey, remember that all the really bad stuff that happened so far has happened while Clinton's been in the White House. So I'm betting that Gore is going to be just as bad, no? I'd say the best bet would be for geeks to start a massive campaign finance reform movement. Use the word "bribery" liberally and people will probably take notice.
-RickHunter
I don't know who walked out, but I'm guessing that they'd been informed ahead of time by their record labels that they had to do that or they'd be in violation of contract.
-RickHunter
From what I understand, the current Patent laws are changed little from the originals. The way the patent office enforces them, however, is extremely different. (Business model patents? Come on!) Copyright, on the other hand, has been steadily twisted since about the end of World War II to a form that benefits the entertainment industry. They've backed this up by a massive media push of the concept "copyright = ownership." It doesn't. Copyright is just that. Copy rights.
-RickHunter
Indeed if this didn't happen the entire music industry would probably fall apart...
Well, yeah. How long has it been since you heard an original song? ;-) But seriously, it wouldn't be a problem for the RIAA. They can probably use their contracts to wrench permission out of their artists. And I suspect they would just roll over any independant artist who objected.
-RickHunter
By my understanding, it works as follows. Its a derivative work if I take the code for the game and modify it. If, however, I just like the gameplay and build something similar, its not necessarily a derived work... I'm afraid I'm not incredibly clear on this. For example, most fanfic is a derived work, but a piece of fiction set in a similar universe wouldn't be.
-RickHunter
Its the royal we. Notice that none of the names on that list reads "CmdrTaco." ;-)
-RickHunter
Actually, it seems to stem from an almost global lack of understanding of the ideas behind copyright. A work inspired by a copyrighted work (not directly modified from, that's a derivative work) is fine. If I were a composer and heard a catchy musical sequence, I could build a variation on it into my next song. But it looks to me like now too many people are buying the "Intellectual Property" arguments. Copyright does not inherently equal ownership. It is just what the name says. Copying rights.
Perhaps if we get the Greeks/Hebrews to sue the American government for "imitating" the form of government invented by their ancestors, we'll see some clueing-in? ;-)
-RickHunter
Thanks for the link.
-RickHunter
I haven't read your entire comment yet, but I'm definitely going to. I'm afraid the comment where I got the link was too far back to find, but here's some details to help you. (Its late here, I'll try to find it again tomorrow) The lawsuit that I got a link to the ruling of was Novell suing a reseller (but not a Novell authorized reseller). The case was something like the Napster one, in that the reseller was pretty obviously scum and was taking advantage of Novell to make a buck. (Some Napster execs seem to be... not entirely above-board) He was buying full copies of Novell software, then buying the upgrades and selling the upgrades with quite a profit margin. Novell sued him under (IIRC) two counts of trademark infringement (he'd used their logo in ads) and copyright infringement. He lost on the trademark charges, but the judge ruled that he did indeed own the software he'd bought and that the EULA of the upgrade software was invalid for about ten different reasons.
And that's just one such case. A sale can be a license, but by my understanding, it must be made clear to the consumer and I think they have to sign the agreement...
(Apologies for not being able to find the text of the ruling. I wish I'd bookmarked it...)
-RickHunter
No, buying a copy of a copyrighted work does not equal licensing. It equals OWNERSHIP. You can't distribute more copies, but you own that copy. At least, that's my understanding of copyright law, and I've read a couple of legal rulings linked to (very kindly) by another Slashdot poster that back it up.
-RickHunter
And some of us, due to the MINOR stumbling block of not being US citizens and/or being too young to be paid attention to (only by a year in my case, but still...) can't do anything else about it. I plan to contact some of my government reps about it as soon as I'm able to vote, I also plan to donate to the EFF if they allow donations from Canada and are willing to help in legal cases up here. (Haven't investigated that throughly yet)
-RickHunter
Ok, I've read this comment a bunch of times, and I must conclude that the poster does not know what this site is. If you've got a problem with an editor, take it up with CmdrTaco, who just happens to control the content on this site. Slashdot content can be reasonbly expected to be biased by his personal views, and I'd certantly consider it reasonable for him to throw comments like this about Bush and decidedly Clinton-like behavior (apologies, but I couldn't resist!) in. If you don't like the content, as I said, complain to Taco instead of bitching and moaning about things to look wise and intelligent to the moderators. Or go start your own site, or apply to be an editor here or somewhere else.
-RickHunter
The entire concept of copyright, odd as this may sound, was intended to benefit those who appreciate the art in question. The point was to give the copyright holder a limited monopoly on their work, so that they could make money off it or whatever, in an attempt to encourage them to produce more works. Its only recently that that's been turned into "copyright == ownership." When I buy a videotape, according to the original copyright law, I now own a copy of that work. I cannot copy it except for personal use (increase the number of copies in circulation) except as permitted by Fair Use.
At least, that's how I understand copyright. If someone else has some evidence as to other interpretations of the pre-World War laws, please post links or whatever.
-RickHunter
Allow me to remind you that, in a good number of cases, the media is the agressors in this case. A lot of major American media outlets are owned, however indirectly, by the RIAA and/or MPAA members. Interesting that they've been screaming about Napster and how its so horrible, isn't it?
-RickHunter