"No, if you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, and you aren't, that's identity theft."
No, at least not legally. Identity theft requires more than just using someone's name. I haven't reviewed the indentity theft statutes in every state, but every state I have looked at requires for identity theft:
1. First name and last name, or frst initial and last name;
and 2. personal information.
Both have to be there for identity theft to be an appropriate charge.
"Personal information" is different from state to state (a little), but generally includes things such as social security number, mother's maiden name, place of birth, drivers license number, those sorts of thing that are not generally public record, and are of the type of information necessary to open, use or access credit card accounts, bank accounts, etc.
Things like phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, AIM names, etc., are not generally considered personal information under identity theft statutes, and nothing that is public record is considered personal infromation.
"Neither the summary or the article really explain what's goin on here."
"Companies prefer trade secrets where possible; the danger is trade secrets are not - afaik - legally protected"
Actually, trade secrets ARE legally protected, and people have gone to jail for misappopriating trade secrets -- but the burden is on the secret-keeper to actually keep it secret and to prove to the court that it is deserving of protection...
"Having a monopoly in exchange for public disclosure only encourages innovation where people can base things on that disclosed invention without having to be encumbered by the disclosed invention."
That's not necessarily true. It's almost always cheaper to purchase a license for something than to do the R&D necessary to build something from scratch, escpecially when you are talking about extremely complex inventions.
If everything was a trade secret, then everyone would have to start from scratch to do something, or do whatever they could to steal the information from someone else.
"First, people are trying to patent results and not mechanisms. Even with pharmaceutacals, what is patented (and rightly so, in my mind) is a particular recipe for a drug. It is not the idea of making a drug to treat condition X. (Hopefully that illustrates my point)."
But if only a certain class of drugs can treat a particular condition, and a patent is issued on that particular class of drugs, aren't the results the same? I think that your argument is a good one, but it's not always a cut-and-dried difference. Sometimes there just isn't another way to effectively dop something, and therefore a patent on the "method" effectively patents the "output."
"The trouble, I guess, is determining at what point people are "making money off your invention" and when they are merely using your invention as a starting point for something else. For instance, cars use lots of steel, so technically they "make money off steel", but cars are not steel. "
That's what the courts to -- they determine when someone else is infringing on your patent, or not.
I'm not saying that the patent office (and IP law in general) doesn't need some reform, but I do think there are arguments on both sides, and the IP system in this country is not inherently evil.
Okay, I should have said in the U.S. patents were originally blah blah blah. I didn't realize I had to account all the way back to the Norman invasion...
"Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). "
Not quite. The original reason behind patents was to keep innovation from being kept secret, the idea being that if innovations are out in the open, others can build upon those innovations and advance the technology.
The deal made was that if you are willing to share your innovation with the public, then congress would grant you a limited monopoly in order to make some bucks off of your innovation.
Without patents, companies would be much more likely to keep as much as they could secret, forcing others to reinvent the wheel, and making standards harder to agree on.
Not to say that there aren't things that need to be changed, just pointing out that patents aren't there to protect the "little guy" -- they are a contract between the government and the inventor.
But then if I could get a hold of a copy of your copyrighted work, I could build the invention myself -- your copyright wouldn't stop me from doing that.
"Though actually, I don't think that affected US law directly. It just called for percentage reduction in greenhouse gas production."
Well, how do make sure the greenhouse gas production gets reduced? Do you just ask the companies to please reduce their emissions? No -- you either give then a carrot -- reduced taxes, etc. -- or a stick -- fines and penalties for not complying. Either on requires a change to U.S. law (or the law in whichever country you are talking about).
"Except that copyright violation is not holding up a bank teller. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one."
There are criminal penalties for copyright infringement already, so infringement is both civil and criminal. It's just that it is mainly civil, so people forget about the criminal statutes embedded in the copyright laws.
"Intentional theft of trade secrets can constitute a crime under both federal and state law. The most significant federal law dealing with trade secret theft is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) (18 U.S.C., Sections 1831 to 1839). The Act gives the U.S. Attorney General sweeping powers to prosecute any person or company involved in trade secret misappropriation.
The EEA punishes intentional stealing, copying or receiving of trade secrets "related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate commerce." (18 U.S.C. 1832.) Penalties for violations are severe: Individuals may be fined up to $500,000 and corporations up to $5 million. A violator may also be sent to prison for up to ten years. If the theft is performed on behalf of a foreign government or agent, the corporate fines can double and jail time may increase to 15 years. (18 U.S.C. 1831.) In addition, the property used and proceeds derived from the theft can be seized and sold by the government. (18 U.S.C. 1831, 1834.)
The EEA applies not only to thefts that occur within the United States, but also to conduct outside the U.S. if the thief is a U.S. citizen or corporation, or if any act in furtherance of the offense occurred in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 1838.) The EEA is a federal criminal statute and is enforced by the United States Attorneys' offices located throughout the country.
Several states have also enacted laws making trade secret infringement a crime. For example, in California it is a crime to acquire, disclose or use trade secrets without authorization. Violators may be fined up to $5,000, sentenced to up to one year in jail, or both. (Cal. Penal Code Section 499c.)"
"Take copyright: rightsholders often say that they "own" music, but they don't, and the law is very clear on that. Rather, rightsholders own rights in the music. It's the rights themselves that have "property-like" qualities -- you can own, sell, transfer, &c. a copyright, but you can't "own" a song in the abstract."
If you want to get abstract, then what exactly is "property" anyway? All property is -- ANY property -- is just a "bundle of rights." The right to exclude is just one of the rights associated with "property" -- but show me one place in the law where it says that "property" has to be a tangible item. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, all "property" is is a bunch of rights that the government has given you.
If you own a house, you have a "bundle of rights" that include the right to exclude -- basically, the right to keep people off of your land. But even that right can be trumped by eminent domain, and your right to "exclude" lasts for only so long as you pay taxes on the property.
If someone else can lawfully take something from you, can you really say that you own it? But we associate home "ownership" with ownership of property -- so why not IP?
So, what does "ownership" really mean?
"In fact, that's the basis of the doctrine of first sale: the rightsholder owns the copyright, not the copy of the music (which you own, since you bought it)."
True. But not ALL of the rightsholder's rights are exhausted by the "first sale:" a rightsholder can still (in the case of copyright) control the public performance of THAT particular copy, or the making of a derivative work, or the reproduction.
So, even though you "own" the CD, what you "own" is a bundle of rights, including the right to listen to the music, the right to transfer "ownership," temporarily or permanently, of the CD to another person, the right to destroy the CD, the right to reproduce (as long as you limit yourself to an archival copy under the AHRA), and the right to exclude -- that is, the right to keep someone else from taking your copy.
But you DON'T get the right to publically perform that CD, or create a derivative work, or reproduce the CD (except as noted above). You don't get ALL of the rights. The rightsholders retain SOME of the rights.
That's why it's a mistake to think of property in terms of tangible v. intangible -- it's more proper to think of what "rights" you possess. Typically people associate ownership with the "right to exclude," but there is more to ownership than just that single right.
"Or take patents: if you buy a patented product, like a mousetrap, you've bought a mousetrap. You do, in fact own it. The patent holder has some exclusive rights in the mousetrap, however, such as the right to stop of you from replicating them. The patent holder doesn't own the idea per se, rather he owns rights in the idea."
And those rights give the power to exclude (keep others from building that mousetrap) -- so why isn't that ownership?
Oh, I agree that an email address, or even your home address, are not "private" information -- I was just responding to the OP who said that the was no right to privacy in the constitution, therefore no right to privacy.
You are right, there is no right to privacy written into the Constitution. However, the legislature and courts have, over the years, defined areas where people, even if they don't have a "right" to privacy, have an "expectation of privacy" -- the limits of where one can have such an expectation is grounded in the 4th amendment for criminal proceedings, and in the common law and statutory law for civil proceedings.
You can sue someone for invasion of privacy, for example. And many states make "invasion of privacy" a crime in certain instances, usually involving videotaping naked people without their knowledge...
Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
I know that what I am about to say is considered verboten on/. but, whether you like it or not:
The law says intellectual property is property!
You may have theoretical or philosophical issues with this, fine -- but the law is what it is, until it is changed. And the law says IP is property.
And, contrary to what most on/. would like you to believe, the law has a more expansive notion of stealing than "depriving someone of a particular piece of tangible property." For some fun reading, here's an excerpt from FindLaw that is appropriate here:
"Intentional theft of trade secrets can constitute a crime under both federal and state law. The most significant federal law dealing with trade secret theft is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) (18 U.S.C., Sections 1831 to 1839). The Act gives the U.S. Attorney General sweeping powers to prosecute any person or company involved in trade secret misappropriation.
The EEA punishes intentional stealing, copying or receiving of trade secrets "related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate commerce." (18 U.S.C. 1832.) Penalties for violations are severe: Individuals may be fined up to $500,000 and corporations up to $5 million. A violator may also be sent to prison for up to ten years. If the theft is performed on behalf of a foreign government or agent, the corporate fines can double and jail time may increase to 15 years. (18 U.S.C. 1831.) In addition, the property used and proceeds derived from the theft can be seized and sold by the government. (18 U.S.C. 1831, 1834.)
The EEA applies not only to thefts that occur within the United States, but also to conduct outside the U.S. if the thief is a U.S. citizen or corporation, or if any act in furtherance of the offense occurred in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 1838.) The EEA is a federal criminal statute and is enforced by the United States Attorneys' offices located throughout the country.
Several states have also enacted laws making trade secret infringement a crime. For example, in California it is a crime to acquire, disclose or use trade secrets without authorization. Violators may be fined up to $5,000, sentenced to up to one year in jail, or both. (Cal. Penal Code Section 499c.)"
No, trade secrets can include client lists, marketing plans and strategies, etc. -- not just technical info. Basically anything that a company wants to keep secret is a "trade secret" as long as it is associated with their business and they take reasonable steps to keep it secret.
Actually, it would probably be more along the lines of a civil action for misappropriation of trade secrets -- but there can be criminal penalties for stealing trade secrets as well, so who knows...
The reason building codes are copyrighted is because regulators, like everyone else in government, is lazy. So, what happens is is that some organization of, say, pipefitters puts together a code of "what makes good plumbing," and copyrights it, and distributes it to its members, who then can go forth with the knowledge of how to plumb things good, at least "good" as defined by the pipefitters organization.
Then what happens is a bunch of regulators, say the city council of some city, say, "hey, we need new rules for plumbing." The regulators don't know anything about plumbing, so they ask the pipefitters if they have any idea as to how to plumb a building. The pipefitters say yes, and show them the book.
Then, the city council persons, instead of using the pipefitters book to develop their own regulations, or ask the pipefitters if they can cut-and-paste their ideas into the regulations, they simply write a new regulation which says, "Section 4: Plumbing a House. Refer to pipefitter's guide 123445-344556 (1999) rev 1" -- in other words, they incorporate by reference.
So, what happens is the LAW, or regulation in this case, if fully viewable and ownable by the public -- but the "incorporated by reference" part is still covered by copyright, and you then either have to buy the book or check it out of the library.
This is the point exactly -- I don't have any mod points, so the best I can do is agree with you!
I spent a month in Tanzania this summer -- our guide in the Serengeti got better cell reception out in the middle of Africa then I get on 280 in Palo Alto.
But until cell phones can get to the 99.9999% reception or whatever the number is that landlines have, I doubt that we'll see the cell phone displacing the lanline anytime soon.
Plus, I read an article a couple of years back that basically stated that in a lot of European countries, the move to cell phones was at least in part driven by the very high taxes levied on land lines...
Just FYI, here's the language from 17 U.S.C. 506 which describes criminal copyright infringement:
"(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction.--When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(e) False Representation.--Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.--Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a)."
So yes, there canbe criminal penalties for copyright infringement -- its already built in to the statutes.
Do you go to Cal Poly Pomona? Seems like a lot of CS\math\physics\engineering types end up at JPL at some point in their college career from Cal Poly...
"The president signs treties, but that means nothing. IANAL, etc. The point I think you're trying to make is technically true but misleading. The President can in fact make "treaties" without going through the Senate. The only real difference is they're called executive agreements and only the President has to expressly approve them. The Supreme Court has established that these are constitutional. See for example Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654."
In addition, treaties aren't "nothing" because a real treaty, approved by the Senate, is second only to the Constitution as the "law of the land" -- a real treaty trumps federal and state law. Even an executive order, signed only by the president, trumps all administrative regulations and state laws, and even trumps federal laws enacted after the signing of the executive order.
Of course, both treaties and executive orders are only valid to the extent they don't conflict with the constitution.
There comes a time when a trademark can reach the status of being a "famous" mark -- at that point, the usual "confusion" analysis can give way to both a broader notion of confusion as well as "dilution". Famous marks can fight "confusion" and "dilution" even against competitors well outside the original "core competancy" of the mark holder.
The more remote the industries, the harder the mark holder has to work to show either confusion or dilution -- but a famous mark can pursue infringement actions in places where a normal trademark holder would be unable to do so.
"Atleast he can take the guy to small claims court or something."
The problem with small claims court is jurisdiction. Basically, you have to sue the guy where HE lives -- unless both buyer and seller are in the same state. Further, you can't recover the costs associated with travelling TO the location where the defendant (seller) lives. This is another reason why ebay scams survive and thrive like they do -- not only are the criminal authorities usally uninterested, but it is very difficult and expensive to pursue civil remedies unless the value of the object is very large, or the seller is local.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the sake of accuracy:
This would be libel, not slander. Slander is spoken defamation, libel is written or printed defamation.
"No, if you claim to be a specific Ronald Fitch, and you aren't, that's identity theft."
No, at least not legally. Identity theft requires more than just using someone's name. I haven't reviewed the indentity theft statutes in every state, but every state I have looked at requires for identity theft:
1. First name and last name, or frst initial and last name;
and 2. personal information.
Both have to be there for identity theft to be an appropriate charge.
"Personal information" is different from state to state (a little), but generally includes things such as social security number, mother's maiden name, place of birth, drivers license number, those sorts of thing that are not generally public record, and are of the type of information necessary to open, use or access credit card accounts, bank accounts, etc.
Things like phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, AIM names, etc., are not generally considered personal information under identity theft statutes, and nothing that is public record is considered personal infromation.
"Neither the summary or the article really explain what's goin on here."
Yep.
"Companies prefer trade secrets where possible; the danger is trade secrets are not - afaik - legally protected"
Actually, trade secrets ARE legally protected, and people have gone to jail for misappopriating trade secrets -- but the burden is on the secret-keeper to actually keep it secret and to prove to the court that it is deserving of protection...
"Having a monopoly in exchange for public disclosure only encourages innovation where people can base things on that disclosed invention without having to be encumbered by the disclosed invention."
That's not necessarily true. It's almost always cheaper to purchase a license for something than to do the R&D necessary to build something from scratch, escpecially when you are talking about extremely complex inventions.
If everything was a trade secret, then everyone would have to start from scratch to do something, or do whatever they could to steal the information from someone else.
"First, people are trying to patent results and not mechanisms. Even with pharmaceutacals, what is patented (and rightly so, in my mind) is a particular recipe for a drug. It is not the idea of making a drug to treat condition X. (Hopefully that illustrates my point)."
But if only a certain class of drugs can treat a particular condition, and a patent is issued on that particular class of drugs, aren't the results the same? I think that your argument is a good one, but it's not always a cut-and-dried difference. Sometimes there just isn't another way to effectively dop something, and therefore a patent on the "method" effectively patents the "output."
"The trouble, I guess, is determining at what point people are "making money off your invention" and when they are merely using your invention as a starting point for something else. For instance, cars use lots of steel, so technically they "make money off steel", but cars are not steel. "
That's what the courts to -- they determine when someone else is infringing on your patent, or not.
I'm not saying that the patent office (and IP law in general) doesn't need some reform, but I do think there are arguments on both sides, and the IP system in this country is not inherently evil.
Okay, I should have said in the U.S. patents were originally blah blah blah. I didn't realize I had to account all the way back to the Norman invasion...
"Patents were slightly different - they were originally around so that the garage inventor would be protected from the giant corporation (at least, I hope that's the original intent!). "
Not quite. The original reason behind patents was to keep innovation from being kept secret, the idea being that if innovations are out in the open, others can build upon those innovations and advance the technology.
The deal made was that if you are willing to share your innovation with the public, then congress would grant you a limited monopoly in order to make some bucks off of your innovation.
Without patents, companies would be much more likely to keep as much as they could secret, forcing others to reinvent the wheel, and making standards harder to agree on.
Not to say that there aren't things that need to be changed, just pointing out that patents aren't there to protect the "little guy" -- they are a contract between the government and the inventor.
But then if I could get a hold of a copy of your copyrighted work, I could build the invention myself -- your copyright wouldn't stop me from doing that.
"Though actually, I don't think that affected US law directly. It just called for percentage reduction in greenhouse gas production."
Well, how do make sure the greenhouse gas production gets reduced? Do you just ask the companies to please reduce their emissions? No -- you either give then a carrot -- reduced taxes, etc. -- or a stick -- fines and penalties for not complying. Either on requires a change to U.S. law (or the law in whichever country you are talking about).
"Except that copyright violation is not holding up a bank teller. It's a civil matter, not a criminal one."
There are criminal penalties for copyright infringement already, so infringement is both civil and criminal. It's just that it is mainly civil, so people forget about the criminal statutes embedded in the copyright laws.
"Intentional theft of trade secrets can constitute a crime under both federal and state law. The most significant federal law dealing with trade secret theft is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) (18 U.S.C., Sections 1831 to 1839). The Act gives the U.S. Attorney General sweeping powers to prosecute any person or company involved in trade secret misappropriation.
The EEA punishes intentional stealing, copying or receiving of trade secrets "related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate commerce." (18 U.S.C. 1832.) Penalties for violations are severe: Individuals may be fined up to $500,000 and corporations up to $5 million. A violator may also be sent to prison for up to ten years. If the theft is performed on behalf of a foreign government or agent, the corporate fines can double and jail time may increase to 15 years. (18 U.S.C. 1831.) In addition, the property used and proceeds derived from the theft can be seized and sold by the government. (18 U.S.C. 1831, 1834.)
The EEA applies not only to thefts that occur within the United States, but also to conduct outside the U.S. if the thief is a U.S. citizen or corporation, or if any act in furtherance of the offense occurred in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 1838.) The EEA is a federal criminal statute and is enforced by the United States Attorneys' offices located throughout the country.
Several states have also enacted laws making trade secret infringement a crime. For example, in California it is a crime to acquire, disclose or use trade secrets without authorization. Violators may be fined up to $5,000, sentenced to up to one year in jail, or both. (Cal. Penal Code Section 499c.)"
"Take copyright: rightsholders often say that they "own" music, but they don't, and the law is very clear on that. Rather, rightsholders own rights in the music. It's the rights themselves that have "property-like" qualities -- you can own, sell, transfer, &c. a copyright, but you can't "own" a song in the abstract."
If you want to get abstract, then what exactly is "property" anyway? All property is -- ANY property -- is just a "bundle of rights." The right to exclude is just one of the rights associated with "property" -- but show me one place in the law where it says that "property" has to be a tangible item. When you get down to the nitty-gritty, all "property" is is a bunch of rights that the government has given you.
If you own a house, you have a "bundle of rights" that include the right to exclude -- basically, the right to keep people off of your land. But even that right can be trumped by eminent domain, and your right to "exclude" lasts for only so long as you pay taxes on the property.
If someone else can lawfully take something from you, can you really say that you own it? But we associate home "ownership" with ownership of property -- so why not IP?
So, what does "ownership" really mean?
"In fact, that's the basis of the doctrine of first sale: the rightsholder owns the copyright, not the copy of the music (which you own, since you bought it)."
True. But not ALL of the rightsholder's rights are exhausted by the "first sale:" a rightsholder can still (in the case of copyright) control the public performance of THAT particular copy, or the making of a derivative work, or the reproduction.
So, even though you "own" the CD, what you "own" is a bundle of rights, including the right to listen to the music, the right to transfer "ownership," temporarily or permanently, of the CD to another person, the right to destroy the CD, the right to reproduce (as long as you limit yourself to an archival copy under the AHRA), and the right to exclude -- that is, the right to keep someone else from taking your copy.
But you DON'T get the right to publically perform that CD, or create a derivative work, or reproduce the CD (except as noted above). You don't get ALL of the rights. The rightsholders retain SOME of the rights.
That's why it's a mistake to think of property in terms of tangible v. intangible -- it's more proper to think of what "rights" you possess. Typically people associate ownership with the "right to exclude," but there is more to ownership than just that single right.
"Or take patents: if you buy a patented product, like a mousetrap, you've bought a mousetrap. You do, in fact own it. The patent holder has some exclusive rights in the mousetrap, however, such as the right to stop of you from replicating them. The patent holder doesn't own the idea per se, rather he owns rights in the idea."
And those rights give the power to exclude (keep others from building that mousetrap) -- so why isn't that ownership?
"You're completely off base."
Maybe, but I don't think so.
Oh, I agree that an email address, or even your home address, are not "private" information -- I was just responding to the OP who said that the was no right to privacy in the constitution, therefore no right to privacy.
You are right, there is no right to privacy written into the Constitution. However, the legislature and courts have, over the years, defined areas where people, even if they don't have a "right" to privacy, have an "expectation of privacy" -- the limits of where one can have such an expectation is grounded in the 4th amendment for criminal proceedings, and in the common law and statutory law for civil proceedings.
You can sue someone for invasion of privacy, for example. And many states make "invasion of privacy" a crime in certain instances, usually involving videotaping naked people without their knowledge...
Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
I know that what I am about to say is considered verboten on /. but, whether you like it or not:
/. would like you to believe, the law has a more expansive notion of stealing than "depriving someone of a particular piece of tangible property." For some fun reading, here's an excerpt from FindLaw that is appropriate here:
The law says intellectual property is property!
You may have theoretical or philosophical issues with this, fine -- but the law is what it is, until it is changed. And the law says IP is property.
And, contrary to what most on
"Intentional theft of trade secrets can constitute a crime under both federal and state law. The most significant federal law dealing with trade secret theft is the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA) (18 U.S.C., Sections 1831 to 1839). The Act gives the U.S. Attorney General sweeping powers to prosecute any person or company involved in trade secret misappropriation.
The EEA punishes intentional stealing, copying or receiving of trade secrets "related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate commerce." (18 U.S.C. 1832.) Penalties for violations are severe: Individuals may be fined up to $500,000 and corporations up to $5 million. A violator may also be sent to prison for up to ten years. If the theft is performed on behalf of a foreign government or agent, the corporate fines can double and jail time may increase to 15 years. (18 U.S.C. 1831.) In addition, the property used and proceeds derived from the theft can be seized and sold by the government. (18 U.S.C. 1831, 1834.)
The EEA applies not only to thefts that occur within the United States, but also to conduct outside the U.S. if the thief is a U.S. citizen or corporation, or if any act in furtherance of the offense occurred in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. 1838.) The EEA is a federal criminal statute and is enforced by the United States Attorneys' offices located throughout the country.
Several states have also enacted laws making trade secret infringement a crime. For example, in California it is a crime to acquire, disclose or use trade secrets without authorization. Violators may be fined up to $5,000, sentenced to up to one year in jail, or both. (Cal. Penal Code Section 499c.)"
"I thought Databases weren't copyrighted yet."
They're not. But this is dealing with trade secrets, not copyright -- and databases of customer information do fall under trade secret law...
No, trade secrets can include client lists, marketing plans and strategies, etc. -- not just technical info. Basically anything that a company wants to keep secret is a "trade secret" as long as it is associated with their business and they take reasonable steps to keep it secret.
Actually, it would probably be more along the lines of a civil action for misappropriation of trade secrets -- but there can be criminal penalties for stealing trade secrets as well, so who knows...
The reason building codes are copyrighted is because regulators, like everyone else in government, is lazy. So, what happens is is that some organization of, say, pipefitters puts together a code of "what makes good plumbing," and copyrights it, and distributes it to its members, who then can go forth with the knowledge of how to plumb things good, at least "good" as defined by the pipefitters organization.
Then what happens is a bunch of regulators, say the city council of some city, say, "hey, we need new rules for plumbing." The regulators don't know anything about plumbing, so they ask the pipefitters if they have any idea as to how to plumb a building. The pipefitters say yes, and show them the book.
Then, the city council persons, instead of using the pipefitters book to develop their own regulations, or ask the pipefitters if they can cut-and-paste their ideas into the regulations, they simply write a new regulation which says, "Section 4: Plumbing a House. Refer to pipefitter's guide 123445-344556 (1999) rev 1" -- in other words, they incorporate by reference.
So, what happens is the LAW, or regulation in this case, if fully viewable and ownable by the public -- but the "incorporated by reference" part is still covered by copyright, and you then either have to buy the book or check it out of the library.
You can blame lazy regulators for this one...
This is the point exactly -- I don't have any mod points, so the best I can do is agree with you!
I spent a month in Tanzania this summer -- our guide in the Serengeti got better cell reception out in the middle of Africa then I get on 280 in Palo Alto.
But until cell phones can get to the 99.9999% reception or whatever the number is that landlines have, I doubt that we'll see the cell phone displacing the lanline anytime soon.
Plus, I read an article a couple of years back that basically stated that in a lot of European countries, the move to cell phones was at least in part driven by the very high taxes levied on land lines...
"Presenting the tools to a user to allow them to infringe on somebodys copyrights: Legal"
As long as the tools have "substantial noninfringing uses." Sony v. Universal, the ol' Betamax case.
Just FYI, here's the language from 17 U.S.C. 506 which describes criminal copyright infringement:
"(a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either--
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
(b) Forfeiture and Destruction.--When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.
(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(e) False Representation.--Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.--Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a)."
So yes, there canbe criminal penalties for copyright infringement -- its already built in to the statutes.
Good point -- I graduated from Cal Poly 13 years ago, I guess I forgot about the quarter system...
Do you go to Cal Poly Pomona? Seems like a lot of CS\math\physics\engineering types end up at JPL at some point in their college career from Cal Poly...
"The president signs treties, but that means nothing. IANAL, etc. The point I think you're trying to make is technically true but misleading. The President can in fact make "treaties" without going through the Senate. The only real difference is they're called executive agreements and only the President has to expressly approve them. The Supreme Court has established that these are constitutional. See for example Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654."
In addition, treaties aren't "nothing" because a real treaty, approved by the Senate, is second only to the Constitution as the "law of the land" -- a real treaty trumps federal and state law. Even an executive order, signed only by the president, trumps all administrative regulations and state laws, and even trumps federal laws enacted after the signing of the executive order.
Of course, both treaties and executive orders are only valid to the extent they don't conflict with the constitution.
But they sure as hell ain't "nothing."
There comes a time when a trademark can reach the status of being a "famous" mark -- at that point, the usual "confusion" analysis can give way to both a broader notion of confusion as well as "dilution". Famous marks can fight "confusion" and "dilution" even against competitors well outside the original "core competancy" of the mark holder.
The more remote the industries, the harder the mark holder has to work to show either confusion or dilution -- but a famous mark can pursue infringement actions in places where a normal trademark holder would be unable to do so.
"Atleast he can take the guy to small claims court or something."
The problem with small claims court is jurisdiction. Basically, you have to sue the guy where HE lives -- unless both buyer and seller are in the same state. Further, you can't recover the costs associated with travelling TO the location where the defendant (seller) lives. This is another reason why ebay scams survive and thrive like they do -- not only are the criminal authorities usally uninterested, but it is very difficult and expensive to pursue civil remedies unless the value of the object is very large, or the seller is local.