The RIAA cases have been civil cases because a private plaintiff cannot bring criminal charges for copyright infringement. Only a US Attorney (not merely a lawyer in the USA - one of the prosecutors for the United States who holds the position "US Attorney") can do that. A US Atty. is not going to bring criminal charges for P2P file sharing unless there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This RIAA isn't even close so far.
However, the fact that the RIAA file sharing cases have been dominating headlines does not mean that copyright cases are not prosecuted. The FBI investigates and the US Attorney prosecutes. Routinely.
Check Title 18 Section 506 of the United States Code to see the criminal provision. Any case that references that section and includes "United States" in the name (e.g., something like United States v. Smith) is likely a criminal prosecution.
Hey Clueless AC - In the United States, copyright infringement IS a crime. Don't make statements regarding the law unless you know what you are talking about.
Never assume seriousness when sarcasm is a satisfactory explanation.
... but I'm assuming serious so...
First mistake. Assuming sarcasm would have eliminated the need for your laundry list of reasons why my reasoning was flawed. Assuming sarcasm is a corollary of Occam's Razor.
Call your helpful friends in Distributed Applications at Google;
Let Google's gnomes install distributed apps branded with your company's logo;
???????
Profit!
Any application that won't run in a Firefox window is unneeded and merely distracts from the company's core mission. You won't believe how much of a performance boost you will get when you shut down those apps.
I agree that the "access software provider" sections seem to describe Kaspersky better. I am not sure that software in the form of executable code is "content" as used in the statute.
I guess I will have to spend some time this weekend going over the decision and re-reading the statute. Thanks for the citation.
That does not seem to be enough to qualify as an "interactive service" as that term is used in the statute. Just the act of downloading updates fits a broad technical definition - but the statute is clearly focused on blogs, websites, email providers, and the like. That is what the term was intended to encompass. This seems like a stretch as far as statutory interpretation goes.
I have not read the full opinion yet, but I am at a loss to see how this fits under the CDA's definition of an "interactive computer service." I thought that Kaspersky, like most virus detection programs, ran as a process on the user's machine and only connected to a server for definitions updates. if so, I can't see how that classifies as an "interactive computer service" under the act. Then again, maybe I'm just not being creative enough in my statutory interpretation.
You should consult an IP lawyer who represents YOU (especially not your employer or contractor) to get specific answers to your questions. However, here are some general IP considerations:
For copyrightable items, in the USA you can register your copyright with the Copyright Office. There is a form to fill out and a small fee (around US $45).
For patentable inventions, you can either file a patent application (in the USA - a non-provisional application if you ever want it to publish) or a statutory invention registration (SIR). An SIR is examined like a patent application but does not give patent rights. Non-provisional patent applications are published 18 months after filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, you cannot use the USPTO as your publishing house - you must actually be seeking patent rights in good faith. The filing fee for a small entity is the US is currently US $500. You may also need to pay a patent attorney to assist you in getting a patent application in the proper form and to comply with the requirements of the patent laws. A source code printout will not suffice as a valid patent application.
You can submit a white paper for publication in a journal. Obviously, this will not be a viable approach for source code but it may be suitable for system-level descriptions of your code.
These methods are not perfect. None of these methods will conclusively prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that you created something as of a specific time. Someone can always make the claim that you copied what you filed from another source. However, if you are the true creator, anyone challenging your claim that you are the creator will be unable to substantiate their claims.
There is ALWAYS someone to sue. A corporation is a legal fiction. In most, if not all states in the US, corporations continue to have an existence to sue or be sued for three years after ceasing business operations. In the right cases, courts will readily disregard the existence of a corporation (or LLC, LLP, or other limited liability entity) to reach the individuals (managers / shareholders / sometimes even investors) who ran the company.
One factor courts look at to determine whether a corporation's existence should be disregarded is whether the corporation was undercapitalized. That is, did the corporation have sufficient assets on hand to properly conduct its business and address liabilities that arise from forseeable business risks (including insuring over those risks). Closing up shop so quickly like this is a big indicator, to me at least, that someone is worried about personal liability.
This is only a problem if you consider Wikipedia to be an authoritative source. IMHO, any source that is not peer-reviewed by identified experts and can be edited by anyone at a moment's notice is not authoritative. Wikipedia may be a decent general information source or even a starting point for more serious research, but until these fundamental issues are addressed, it will never be a reliable, authoritative source of information.
Because I know it will come up....
I know "authoritative sources have errors and both can and have been manipulated;
If you dynamically link, then all your "Can I.." questions are answered with "Yes."
But... this is only currently true under version 2 of the GPL. Version 3 of the GPL seeks to eliminate any distinction that can be drawn between static and dynamic linking. Consequently, any linking will do.
The deck is not "totally stacked" against this guy. Show me the written agreement that states that the choreography is a "work made for hire" as required by the statute. Then show me how the choreography fits into one of the statutory categories of works that can be works made for hire.
Simply put, unless you can show BOTH these things, a copyrightable work is NOT a work made for hire. Just because a copyrightable work was created during the course of employment does not make it a work made for hire.
This is not a case of a "loophole." From the evidence on the website it is a clear-cut case of not meeting the definition of a work made for hire. Therefore unless he assigned the work to his employer the employer does NOT own the work.
Be willing to walk out of the studio. Be willing to pay for the negatives / digital files. Most (but not all) photographers will ultimately agree to sell you the copyright if you show you are willing to walk and hire someone else.
MAKE SURE you get it in WRITING that the photos are works made for hire or if not works made for hire the photographer assigns the copyright to you.
Make sure you have an honest photographer. Honesty is worth MUCH more than the best contract. Trust me - it totally SUCKS to have your photographer screw you on your wedding photos. Having to sue him/her just adds to the injury.
So are they then liable for "attempted infringement" (tried to do it right but failed) or is the incorrect version a derivative work (tried to do it right - didn't remember how - made up some of my own)?
It's not that simple. His employer only owns it if he assigned it to his employer or if it is a work made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976. Among other things, the Act requires a written agreement that the work is made for hire. The documents posted there do not include enough information to determine.
... that someone complaining of copyright violations has a webpage that depicts 4 cartoon characters dancing to music - and one of those characters is pretty clearly Spiderman. Last I had heard, Spiderman is copyrighted by Marvel Characters, Inc. (Marvel Comics). I wonder if Mr. Ric Silver got a license from Marvel to use the Spiderman character? Someone who cares about enforcing copyrights in his work must surely respect copyrights owned by others and not use copyrighted works of others without permission. I looked but could not find any licensing information on this page or his personal homepage. I even used the search engine on the the-electricslidedance.com webpage to search for the word "license" but unfortunately got no results returned.
Also, his webpage (and personal homepage each play a sound recording of a song I believe is called (warning: iTunes link)"Electric Boogie" by Marcia Griffiths. I can't help but wonder if Mr. Silver has a license from ASCAP, BMI, or whichever entity may be responsible for enforcing the copyright for this sound recording.
As long as I am pointing out these types of things, on Mr. Silver's homepage is a graphical representation of a copyright symbol (the "circle-c" symbol) that looks remarkably similar to the one on the webpage of the U.S. Copyright Office.
In a line in the song "Electric Boogie" the singer says, "Oooooh.. shocking!" Are these facts shocking? Not to me. But very interesting. At least in my humble opinion.
with the following preface: I do not know if I am licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction so I am not giving you legal advice. I am STRONGLY recommending that you consider the following GENERAL advice:
Consult with a lawyer who has an established track record dealing with employment issues involving trade secrets; and
Don't stress out about the threat too much unless you get served with a summons and a court complaint. Even then, (to borrow a phrase from Doug Adams): DON'T PANIC. However, DO get legal counsel and DON'T ignore any time deadlines set by a court.
You want to disagree with me? Go right ahead. You want to claim I'm not something I claim to be? You better be able to prove it because you are coming DANGEROUSLY close to the line that separates opinion from libel. You are making sweeping generalizations here, along with some plain misstatements or omissions. That is what I call FUD.
Slashdot Mirror
However, the fact that the RIAA file sharing cases have been dominating headlines does not mean that copyright cases are not prosecuted. The FBI investigates and the US Attorney prosecutes. Routinely.
Check Title 18 Section 506 of the United States Code to see the criminal provision. Any case that references that section and includes "United States" in the name (e.g., something like United States v. Smith) is likely a criminal prosecution.
Hey Clueless AC - In the United States, copyright infringement IS a crime. Don't make statements regarding the law unless you know what you are talking about.
Never assume seriousness when sarcasm is a satisfactory explanation.
First mistake. Assuming sarcasm would have eliminated the need for your laundry list of reasons why my reasoning was flawed. Assuming sarcasm is a corollary of Occam's Razor.
This kind of thinking drives me crazy.
If you had assumed sarcasm maybe this kind of thinking would have driven you to be amused instead. See what kind of problems assuming seriousness leads to? Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time! You and all your silly English seriousness!
Any application that won't run in a Firefox window is unneeded and merely distracts from the company's core mission. You won't believe how much of a performance boost you will get when you shut down those apps.
Quoth the article:
"With all things considered, did Apple make a serious mistake by delaying Leopard's release until October? I don't think so." (emphasis added)
I guess I will have to spend some time this weekend going over the decision and re-reading the statute. Thanks for the citation.
That does not seem to be enough to qualify as an "interactive service" as that term is used in the statute. Just the act of downloading updates fits a broad technical definition - but the statute is clearly focused on blogs, websites, email providers, and the like. That is what the term was intended to encompass. This seems like a stretch as far as statutory interpretation goes.
I acknowledged that point - that does not mean that it qualifies as an "interactive service" as that term is used by the statute.
I have not read the full opinion yet, but I am at a loss to see how this fits under the CDA's definition of an "interactive computer service." I thought that Kaspersky, like most virus detection programs, ran as a process on the user's machine and only connected to a server for definitions updates. if so, I can't see how that classifies as an "interactive computer service" under the act. Then again, maybe I'm just not being creative enough in my statutory interpretation.
- For copyrightable items, in the USA you can register your copyright with the Copyright Office. There is a form to fill out and a small fee (around US $45).
- For patentable inventions, you can either file a patent application (in the USA - a non-provisional application if you ever want it to publish) or a statutory invention registration (SIR). An SIR is examined like a patent application but does not give patent rights. Non-provisional patent applications are published 18 months after filing with the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, you cannot use the USPTO as your publishing house - you must actually be seeking patent rights in good faith. The filing fee for a small entity is the US is currently US $500. You may also need to pay a patent attorney to assist you in getting a patent application in the proper form and to comply with the requirements of the patent laws. A source code printout will not suffice as a valid patent application.
- You can submit a white paper for publication in a journal. Obviously, this will not be a viable approach for source code but it may be suitable for system-level descriptions of your code.
These methods are not perfect. None of these methods will conclusively prove beyond any doubt whatsoever that you created something as of a specific time. Someone can always make the claim that you copied what you filed from another source. However, if you are the true creator, anyone challenging your claim that you are the creator will be unable to substantiate their claims.Unfortunately, the money was already spent. No new Internet for you. Make do with your old tubes. Nothing to see here - the bridge goes to nowhere. Leave Senator Stevens alone. Sorry.
One factor courts look at to determine whether a corporation's existence should be disregarded is whether the corporation was undercapitalized. That is, did the corporation have sufficient assets on hand to properly conduct its business and address liabilities that arise from forseeable business risks (including insuring over those risks). Closing up shop so quickly like this is a big indicator, to me at least, that someone is worried about personal liability.
I'm glad we agree. That can be a rare thing on Slashdot.
Because I know it will come up ....
No matter what the right answer is, it will be very expensive to find out - especially if you have to get a court to tell you.
But ... this is only currently true under version 2 of the GPL. Version 3 of the GPL seeks to eliminate any distinction that can be drawn between static and dynamic linking. Consequently, any linking will do.
DOH! Beat me to it ....
Simply put, unless you can show BOTH these things, a copyrightable work is NOT a work made for hire. Just because a copyrightable work was created during the course of employment does not make it a work made for hire.
This is not a case of a "loophole." From the evidence on the website it is a clear-cut case of not meeting the definition of a work made for hire. Therefore unless he assigned the work to his employer the employer does NOT own the work.
MAKE SURE you get it in WRITING that the photos are works made for hire or if not works made for hire the photographer assigns the copyright to you.
Make sure you have an honest photographer. Honesty is worth MUCH more than the best contract. Trust me - it totally SUCKS to have your photographer screw you on your wedding photos. Having to sue him/her just adds to the injury.
So are they then liable for "attempted infringement" (tried to do it right but failed) or is the incorrect version a derivative work (tried to do it right - didn't remember how - made up some of my own)?
It's not that simple. His employer only owns it if he assigned it to his employer or if it is a work made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976. Among other things, the Act requires a written agreement that the work is made for hire. The documents posted there do not include enough information to determine.
Also, his webpage (and personal homepage each play a sound recording of a song I believe is called (warning: iTunes link)"Electric Boogie" by Marcia Griffiths. I can't help but wonder if Mr. Silver has a license from ASCAP, BMI, or whichever entity may be responsible for enforcing the copyright for this sound recording.
As long as I am pointing out these types of things, on Mr. Silver's homepage is a graphical representation of a copyright symbol (the "circle-c" symbol) that looks remarkably similar to the one on the webpage of the U.S. Copyright Office.
In a line in the song "Electric Boogie" the singer says, "Oooooh .. shocking!" Are these facts shocking? Not to me. But very interesting. At least in my humble opinion.
Hear hear!
You want to disagree with me? Go right ahead. You want to claim I'm not something I claim to be? You better be able to prove it because you are coming DANGEROUSLY close to the line that separates opinion from libel. You are making sweeping generalizations here, along with some plain misstatements or omissions. That is what I call FUD.