Eh, it's like people thoroughly mangling computer terms. There's one clause called the establishment clause, and that's in the First Amendment.
Perhaps I heard wrong and that section should be called a patent and copyright clause, though neither of those terms is employed.
And the elastic clause doesn't mention elasticity. So what? They're lawyer's jargon for various clauses in the Constitution, not parts of the actual document. The important thing is that people know what you mean when you use them, which isn't helped by misusing them.
You might note that the motivation is the promotion of useful arts
No, the purpose of copyrights is to promote science. The purpose of patents is to promote the useful arts. Remember, the Constitution was written in the late 18th century -- some of the words have rather different meanings than they do today, because English is a very dynamic language.
You can see that this is the case by looking at the structure of the clause, which always goes copyright, then patent: science/useful arts, authors/inventors, writings/discoveries. Or by considering that some uses of the word 'art' in its 'applied technology' sense still survive, such as 'state of the art' or 'prior art' or 'person having ordinary skill in the art.' Or by just consulting your convenient pocket-sized unabridged OED for the meanings of those words in the 1780's.
a monopoly on an expression is anything but a promotion
Well, that depends. Think of, say, cable tv monopolies. The idea is that a town will give a monopoly to a cable company so that the cable company will have an incentive to install all the wiring throughout the town. Eventually the monopoly runs out, but the wires are still in place, so the town can enjoy competitor providers to reduce prices. Basically it's a way of getting a cake and eating it too, but over an extended period of time.
Copyright is meant to work the same way: while the ideal world would be authors producing all they can, and with no copyrights at all, by deferring the point where works are in the public domain, you provide an incentive to authors to create works that they otherwise would not have created.
The trick is to remember that you're not doing this for the benefit of the monopolist, who must not be allowed to get too powerful, that the monopolist should be 'paid' the lowest amount where he still does what you want, and that sometimes the monopoly is more harmful than whatever benefits you can derive from it.
How copyright grew from 14 years to 75 is an inexcusable tale of greed.
First, term length went from 14+14 years to the current life+70 / 95 / 120 / not before AD 2048 / not before AD 2067 terms we have now (which one applies depends on various details that basically makes it impractical to even check). Of course, it didn't happen all in one go. Terms have lengthened over the years.
Second, don't get caught up on term length. Yes, it is tremendously bad, but the scope of copyright -- what it applies to, what exceptions exist, the procedure for getting a copyright or licensing or conveying rights, etc. -- are also of crucial importance. Merely reigning in term length would not be good enough to fix things.
In the US, the establishment clause of the constitution somehow has given us eternal copyright, three broadcasters and three big music publishers with much overlap.
Given that the establishment clause is the clause that prohibits the government from establishing a religion, could you explain precisely how it's given us eternal copyright, etc.? I'm especially interested in how it compares with the copyright and patent clause.
I am an IP lawyer as well. And while I agree that DRM is unacceptable, and that people generally will prefer resonable legitimate goods, I also think that copyright law should generally conform to people's expectations. Thus, if most people are happy using P2P networks to make and distribute copies, then this should be legalized. While it might have a negative effect on the industry, copyright is meant to serve the public, not authors.
I don't know enough about that to understand what you're saying. I'm interested, though, if you'd care to elaborate.
If a work is fixed into a tangible medium long enough to be perceived or recopied, it's not going to be considered ephermeral. A truly ephermeral copy is not the sort that, if made, is enough to give rise to a lawsuit.
I've read some comments to the effect that the language might exclude Free Software from that exception.
Why? If I am authorized to make a copy, and there are no strings attached regarding who owns that copy, then I own the copy, and 117 is applicable. GPL software is some of the only software where one can absolutely rely on 117 applying. Of course, there's still the problem of third parties using the software (e.g. if I set up a public terminal running Linux, the public users are not the owners), which is something that needs to be fixed up. But generally 117 is good.
It's unfortunate that people see a dichotomy there. An actual case seeking enforcement would pretty certainly involve both causes at once. There's no reason to do only one or the other.
What I think is dangerous about going down this path is that it is not clear at all what the terms "source code" and "object code" mean in a non-software context
It is absolutely clear what source code means in a non software context, because it is defined in the GPL, and that definition will be controlling. The fuzziness is with regard to what 'object code' means, but since it has to make sense in light of the GPL's statement that applies to works other than programs, it's probably quite inclusive, rather than being limited to software. If it was not, that statement wouldn't mean anything, and that doesn't make sense.
Someone thinking of distributing a movie under this license had better get something significantly more concrete before doing it.
I didn't say it would be a good idea, just that it would be possible.
In this context, it's a cut of meat. It is difficult to get a job in IT unless you can bribe your way in by giving more senior IT staff members choice pieces of meat. When no one is around, they cook the meat using computer equipment, which is designed to produce ample heat for exactly this reason.
It's possible that a court would disagree, since there are some rulings to the effect that since the act of running a program involves making an ephemeral copy of it (from disk to RAM, usually), running a copyrighted program without permission (a licence) from the copyright owner is infringement.
Ephermeral copies aren't actionable. A MAI v. Peak sort of case would not consider the copies at hand to be ephermeral just because they're short-lived.
In any event, 17 USC 117 provides a broad but limited exception for running and backing-up software. It would not be bad for it to be broader, however.
What's the difference? A court will look at what the nature of a transaction is, rather than the label the parties choose to put on it. If you say that you're leasing something out, forever, for an initial lump sum, what you've really done is sold it.
Copyright law and contract law are two distinct bodies of law, yes. However, contracts governing copyright licensing are absolutely commonplace, and breaching such a contract would give rise to causes of action for both copyright infringement and breach of contract.
In the commercial field, licenses typically take the form of an exchange of a promise for party A to be free to use a work, within certain conditions, and an exchange of party B to pay for that by promising money or something of value.
The GPL is substantially the same. The interesting part is that a condition has to arise (distribution) for party B to have to do the action it promised to do (distribute source) and that party A isn't the only beneficiary of party B's obligation. But that's about it for unusual things in the GPL.
I don't feel like getting into it so soon again (feel free to look through my recent posts), but the GPL is a contract. And while one could sue violators under either contract law or copyright law, or both simultaneously, the smart money would be on both simultaneously. You have to prove the elements of each offense, but since lack of authorization must be proven for the copyright infringement claim to succeed, you're already doing this anyway. If you win, you can not only get extra damages (stacking the copyright and contract damages together) but may be able to get injunctive relief from the copyright action that wouldn't normally be available in a contract dispute.
As for SOX, I'll leave that for people more familiar with it.
On what possible basis could someone say that they have a right to take copyrighted code belonging to someone else and modify and redistibute it in a way the copyright holder doesn't approve.
To launch the Beagle search UI is a single keypress: F12. On Spotlight it's a double keystroke: command spacebar. Advantage: Beagle.
That's a simplistic analysis. Since users will generally type in their search terms, their hands will be in the main section of the keyboard. That means that it is easier to press Cmd-Space than F12, since the former is located closer to where their hands are. In fact, it's easy to do with one thumb, since the two keys are next to one another. To hit F12 on most keyboards, you can't just reach over, you have to move your hand over.
Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind.
That's still an economic benefit. Non-economic benefits would be things such as fame, or creating art for art's sake, or creating art and exploiting it economically not in a way dependant on copyrights. This latter would include artists who might make a piece where the value is in the copy, rather than the work, or where the value is in that they made it, regardless of whether someone else made a perfect duplicate. For example, Picasso often paid his bills with little sketches. The value was that people would pay a lot for a work made by him. If I drew the same thing, no one would care. If I tried to sell copies of the same thing, it still wouldn't have cut into his earnings because he made money regardless of copyright.
So if you want rights in someone else's derivative work based on your work, the appropriate thing to do is to get a copyright and trade on its value to get what you want, if you can. But if you indicate no interest in exploiting your work's economic value, however you would do so, you still shouldn't get those rights anyway.
Basically, you keep giving authors rights at the expense of the public. Where this serves the public interest, that's fine, but when it doesn't, it's not tolerable. Artists that didn't care about getting rights, and who didn't create their work in order to get rights in it, shouldn't get those rights. Granting them would be like paying money for something you got for free. It's wasteful. And it's not even your money that you're paying with.
It simply costs too much to determine if something is copyrigth or in the public domain. My idea would fix that for many.
How? If you're unwilling to require people to fill out a form or put notice on their works, then why do you think you can require people to put a GPL-notice on their works. For unregistered works, you're still in the dark.
My system would be to make registration manditory in order to get a copyright, along with notice. If you found a copy of a work without notice, you'd know you were ok. If you wanted to check, you could consult the Copyright Office database, just like you can search the PTO database for patents and trademarks. (Of course, part of my agenda would be setting up a good copyright search database, and swiftly terminating old copyrights so that we rapidly need only deal with the new system)
But they are not, as now run, so easy to comply with, especially as results to a remix culture. I may make only a small contribution to a program, but I wan't my copyright because it puts me at the table, but if I make many such small contributions, I can end up paying a significant amount when I have no intentions of earning from it. I am already paying enough in my time for what I am giving to the world.
Well, I'm not psychic. I cannot differentiate between Alice, who modifies a work with the intent of pursuing some kind of economic benefit, whether as money or a viral GPL, and Bob, who modifies a work to feel good about himself, and needs no further reward.
Formalities are just a way for Alice to step forward and make herself stand out from Bob. It is appropriate to shift the burden on to her; she is best at knowing her own motives and identifying herself.
They also tend to keep Alice from trying to get rights on absolutely trivial things, though even very modest things are acceptable since the burden is still quite low. (E.g. posts on/., or intraoffice memos are not worth copyrighting, and really shouldn't be copyrighted -- copyright should be reserved for published material such as books or videos or music or pamphlets.)
I may very well not want this but not be able to afford the registration fee and so will not publish my work untill I can get the money together.
If you can't get $30 + postage + cost of a couple of best copies,
4-6 of the GPL only require that you comply with the license in order to keep your rights under the license, conditions indicating acceptance, and the pay-it-forward model the GPL uses. None of those hinge on a source/object code model.
Remember, source code is defined in the GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. In the case of a movie, that could be a film negative or or all the various elements that went into making the movie. Tough to say, without having an expert witness from the movie industry. But it doesn't have to be in C or anything. It would have to be machine readable, but that's not too difficult in this day and age. Some creative interpretation of what object code is might be required, but given that the drafters apparently intended for non-software works to be covered, a court shouldn't have trouble with that.
What is actually being granted to the recipient of a supposedly GPL-licensed movie? The privilege to form a production crew and matching cast to generate a facsimile, with one's own modifications that must be detailed to downstream recipients who wish to do the same?
Probably copies of the materials that were edited together to form the movie (video and audio) in the form of elements (e.g. all the pieces of film used to create one shot, and the individual sound effects and pieces of dialog over it) so that someone can re-edit the movie, add parts to it, take parts away, etc. If they want to do that by restaging shots, they could, but I think that it's not preferred enough to require every single detail to be included.
This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.
I don't see anything that would preclude distributing works other than software under the GPL. It might not be a good fit, and there are things like the FDL, which could be better, but I think it's at least possible. And I seem to recall having seen it happen before for art or something, but I don't recall the precise details.
What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.
Let's back up here:
First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work. For example, if I make a movie based on a popular public domain fairy tale, such as Snow White, I cannot prevent third parties from also making movies based on that story. Only the new contributions I've made are protectable by me.
See, the situation we're looking at is where Alice writes a book, but cannot be bothered to go through a simple procedure to copyright it. Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it. The book is in the public domain, as a result. If the book is in the public domain, and Bob writes a sequel (which would be unlawful if the book were copyrighted), then I see no problem with that.
Now, the goal of copyright is to maximize the net public benefit, which consists of encouraging the creation of original works, encouraging the creation of derivative works, encouraging publication, having no or minimal restrictions on the public's enjoyment of the work (i.e. having the least possible copyright), and putting the work into the public domain as fast as possible (which furthers promote publication, public enjoyment, and creation of derivatives).
Whether Alice writes a sequel, or Bob writes a sequel, I don't actually care. The goal is to get these derivative works written. If we give a copyright to Alice, who appears not to care, given her behavior, we're unlikely to get a sequel; copyright is providing no incentive for her, or she would have evidenced that it was by seeking out a copyright, and Bob is not allowed to write one. If we don't give a copyright to Alice, then Bob is free to write a sequel (as is Alice), and we get something. Bob can't prevent Alice from writing her own sequels. And the same thing applies to Bob as applied to Alice -- if he wants a copyright on the material he's added to the material derived, he has to evidence this with some affirmative steps. Nothing difficult, but enough to determine who wants a copyright, and who doesn't care.
Boiled down, you're saying that because Alice didn't care about a copyright on her book, Bob shouldn't be allowed to get a copyright even if he does care, for no better reason than that he wrote a sequel to Alice's book. I just don't see how that's fair. Alice had her chance to exploit her book for whatever it was worth, and she didn't take it. She should be stuck with the consequences of that decision, whether she's happy with the outcome or not.
They do now, but under what you are proposing and the situation I laid out, my work would enter the public domain.
I meant that they vest with authors, if they vest with anyone. Bob cannot copyright the book Alice wrote. Alice can sell him the copyright. Or Bob can be the true author of the book, and Alice was just his employee, working for him (like how a secretary taking dictation isn't the author of what he's writing down). But people cannot snatch copyrights from the people they should rightfully vest in.
You may know the laws in your country, but do you know them in mine?
My apologies, but the default around here is to assume American law.
They may not be tightly coupled, but I would hate to see things being "fixed" but only in those areas that make it worse for the public in general and the small guys.
Formalities are good for the public in general, because they tend to ensure that copyright is limited to those that actually need it, it preserves copies of the work against future potential loss, and it provides notice to the public as to what they cannot copy, letting them safely assume that they can copy anything without notice.
And since they're so easy to comply with, they're perfectly fine for small authors, who are also exp
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Since the the statute uses the word 'or,' a product that satisfies any one criterion is unlawful to traffic in; satisfaction of all three criteria is not required.
The main problem is (a)(2)(B). Just because there are lawful uses to which a circumvention product may be put (such as in conjunction with a GPL'ed work or public domain works) that still tends to leave it with a limited commercially significant use. The Reimerdes court considered whether DeCSS could be lawful to traffic in, given that it could be used not only unlawfully to circumvent DRM for copyrighted movies, but also lawfully to circumvent DRM for public domain movies. Nevertheless, this was not a significant enough use, and DeCSS was not saved.
Therefore, Alice can sue Carol successfully, because there are a lot of Alices, and few Bobs.
I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical/. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.
It's a little different.
Parties in a suit can stipulate as to various facts. This means that they agree, and therefore the court doesn't have to look into that fact. For example, if you sell me a car, and I sue over some defect that causes me injury, we might stipulate that some parts of the car are not involved, or are in their original condition. The case would then be restricted to just those areas that we are in disagreement over.
This would work the same way. A copyright holder can't sue for circumvention unless they claim that there is an effective TPM. If they've already stipulated that there isn't, it shuts them down right there.
It's not really equivalent to your analogy, since there's no requirement that works are encumbered with DRM or that it is effective. It's not like a regulation for safety purposes or something where there is an interest in protecting customers from themselves (if they agreed that they wanted to buy an unsafe car).
In any event, I'm sticking by my guns in that I think that the GPL should be totally exclusive of DRM. They're not reconcilable, and frankly, the latter should be wiped out. There is not a middle ground or acceptable compromise, IMO.
Nah, it's basically an admission. I don't think it's dubious in that respect, since non-effectiveness will be treated as a fact from the get-go.
My concern is that I don't think this part of the GPL will actually work. I think it will backfire in that people can take GPL'ed software, apply DRM to it (or their modifications of it) and effectively prevent anyone from making future modifications to it despite the fact that it is GPL'ed.
And I'm saying that if you have GPL'ed DRM'ed software, then it might as well not be GPL'ed because people who use the same DRM and not the GPL will sue people who take advantage of their rights under the GPL.
It's better to avoid the problem and ensure that GPL'ed software is honestly free by not allowing it to be DRM'ed at all.
Let us say that Alice makes a DVD encrypted with CSS. Bob makes a different DVD encrypted with CSS, and which is licensed under the GPL. Carol makes and distributes copies of DeCSS. And Dave wants to use Bob's work pursuant to the GPL.
Dave can circumvent CSS in order to decrypt Bob's DVD, per the GPL. He can arguably even make a tool (such as DeCSS) in order to do so, provided that he keeps it to himself. But Carol cannot make or distribute versions of DeCSS because Alice will sue her (and win). This means that if Dave is unable to make his own DeCSS, the fact that he is legally allowed to circumvent CSS is moot because he cannot do so as a practical matter.
Therefore, I suggest that the GPL state that works covered by the GPL may not be DRM'ed at all. This doesn't extend to all the works Bob has made or will make, which is where you seem to have gotten confused. Bob would be free to make one DVD with CSS which is not under the GPL, and free to make another DVD under the GPL, but without CSS.
Since it's not safe to assume that Dave will be able to meaningfully take advantage of his rights under the GPL, vis-a-vis DRM'ed works, I think the appropriate thing to do is to make sure that the GPL and DRM are exclusive of one another.
This also means that if Dave makes his own version of Bob's DVD, he could not add DRM to it (which might block Bob as well as other users).
Fundamentally, I think that allowing GPL'ed works to be DRM'ed is contrary to the goals of the GPL.
It's muddled right now. First it says that any DRM applied is not the type of DRM protected by the DMCA. Then it says that what it means is that permission is granted for circumvention. That's not the same thing, though I think it should have statements indicating that the licensee is agreeing that any DRM is ineligible for protection and that alternatively, permission to circumvent it is given.
Of course, this doesn't help enough, IMO. Let's say that someone released a movie under the GPL, and that it was on DVD and encrypted with CSS. Even though everyone has permission to circumvent it under the GPL, and the author is stating that CSS -- as used there -- is unprotected, this doesn't help. Third party movie studios can still claim that CSS is effective, and that a tool used to decrypt CSS, being just as able to circumvent the DRM on their movies as on the GPL'ed movie, is unlawful under the trafficking provisions of the statute. Thus, by using a commonplace DRM system, even though a person is releasing a work under the GPL, the DRM is still effective in keeping people from circumventing it even though they have a right to do so.
Better for the GPL to simply deny licensees the right to use DRM of any kind on relevant works.
It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so,
That seems odd to me, and rather childish. I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can. Given that I have no problem with people exploiting a work for its full value (it's just as silly to let a profitable work languish as it is to let fruit rot on the vine) I don't care whether third parties do it if the author isn't going to. Someone should.
Also n.b. that copyrights vest in the authors of works. The copyrights can be transferred to others, and sometimes you can be surprised as to who really is the author, but if anyone gets them to begin with, it's the author. So you've no legitimate worries about other people copyrighting your work away from you.
especially in the case where those others have shown the willingness to push for the passage of laws which result in jail time of up to five years for the simle posession of a non-bonafide dvd or cd which I may have bought in innocence.
Possession of an unlawfully made copy isn't infringing. Making the copy or distributing it are what's infringing.
Personally, I don't think I would like to see the registration and deposit requirements reinstituted unless the copyright terms were dropped to forteen years at the same time. I think people ought to be able to build upon the works that were current in their childhood.
I agree about the last part -- although I think it's that we should not cause our children to have to suffer copyrights dating from our generation -- but I think that we need formalities regardless of term length. They're not that tightly related anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, picky, picky.
Eh, it's like people thoroughly mangling computer terms. There's one clause called the establishment clause, and that's in the First Amendment.
Perhaps I heard wrong and that section should be called a patent and copyright clause, though neither of those terms is employed.
And the elastic clause doesn't mention elasticity. So what? They're lawyer's jargon for various clauses in the Constitution, not parts of the actual document. The important thing is that people know what you mean when you use them, which isn't helped by misusing them.
You might note that the motivation is the promotion of useful arts
No, the purpose of copyrights is to promote science. The purpose of patents is to promote the useful arts. Remember, the Constitution was written in the late 18th century -- some of the words have rather different meanings than they do today, because English is a very dynamic language.
You can see that this is the case by looking at the structure of the clause, which always goes copyright, then patent: science/useful arts, authors/inventors, writings/discoveries. Or by considering that some uses of the word 'art' in its 'applied technology' sense still survive, such as 'state of the art' or 'prior art' or 'person having ordinary skill in the art.' Or by just consulting your convenient pocket-sized unabridged OED for the meanings of those words in the 1780's.
a monopoly on an expression is anything but a promotion
Well, that depends. Think of, say, cable tv monopolies. The idea is that a town will give a monopoly to a cable company so that the cable company will have an incentive to install all the wiring throughout the town. Eventually the monopoly runs out, but the wires are still in place, so the town can enjoy competitor providers to reduce prices. Basically it's a way of getting a cake and eating it too, but over an extended period of time.
Copyright is meant to work the same way: while the ideal world would be authors producing all they can, and with no copyrights at all, by deferring the point where works are in the public domain, you provide an incentive to authors to create works that they otherwise would not have created.
The trick is to remember that you're not doing this for the benefit of the monopolist, who must not be allowed to get too powerful, that the monopolist should be 'paid' the lowest amount where he still does what you want, and that sometimes the monopoly is more harmful than whatever benefits you can derive from it.
How copyright grew from 14 years to 75 is an inexcusable tale of greed.
First, term length went from 14+14 years to the current life+70 / 95 / 120 / not before AD 2048 / not before AD 2067 terms we have now (which one applies depends on various details that basically makes it impractical to even check). Of course, it didn't happen all in one go. Terms have lengthened over the years.
Second, don't get caught up on term length. Yes, it is tremendously bad, but the scope of copyright -- what it applies to, what exceptions exist, the procedure for getting a copyright or licensing or conveying rights, etc. -- are also of crucial importance. Merely reigning in term length would not be good enough to fix things.
I concur re: inexcusable greed.
In the US, the establishment clause of the constitution somehow has given us eternal copyright, three broadcasters and three big music publishers with much overlap.
Given that the establishment clause is the clause that prohibits the government from establishing a religion, could you explain precisely how it's given us eternal copyright, etc.? I'm especially interested in how it compares with the copyright and patent clause.
Well, the trick is to make sure that when you do it, it's billable.
I am an IP lawyer as well. And while I agree that DRM is unacceptable, and that people generally will prefer resonable legitimate goods, I also think that copyright law should generally conform to people's expectations. Thus, if most people are happy using P2P networks to make and distribute copies, then this should be legalized. While it might have a negative effect on the industry, copyright is meant to serve the public, not authors.
I don't know enough about that to understand what you're saying. I'm interested, though, if you'd care to elaborate.
If a work is fixed into a tangible medium long enough to be perceived or recopied, it's not going to be considered ephermeral. A truly ephermeral copy is not the sort that, if made, is enough to give rise to a lawsuit.
I've read some comments to the effect that the language might exclude Free Software from that exception.
Why? If I am authorized to make a copy, and there are no strings attached regarding who owns that copy, then I own the copy, and 117 is applicable. GPL software is some of the only software where one can absolutely rely on 117 applying. Of course, there's still the problem of third parties using the software (e.g. if I set up a public terminal running Linux, the public users are not the owners), which is something that needs to be fixed up. But generally 117 is good.
It's unfortunate that people see a dichotomy there. An actual case seeking enforcement would pretty certainly involve both causes at once. There's no reason to do only one or the other.
What I think is dangerous about going down this path is that it is not clear at all what the terms "source code" and "object code" mean in a non-software context
It is absolutely clear what source code means in a non software context, because it is defined in the GPL, and that definition will be controlling. The fuzziness is with regard to what 'object code' means, but since it has to make sense in light of the GPL's statement that applies to works other than programs, it's probably quite inclusive, rather than being limited to software. If it was not, that statement wouldn't mean anything, and that doesn't make sense.
Someone thinking of distributing a movie under this license had better get something significantly more concrete before doing it.
I didn't say it would be a good idea, just that it would be possible.
In this context, it's a cut of meat. It is difficult to get a job in IT unless you can bribe your way in by giving more senior IT staff members choice pieces of meat. When no one is around, they cook the meat using computer equipment, which is designed to produce ample heat for exactly this reason.
It's possible that a court would disagree, since there are some rulings to the effect that since the act of running a program involves making an ephemeral copy of it (from disk to RAM, usually), running a copyrighted program without permission (a licence) from the copyright owner is infringement.
Ephermeral copies aren't actionable. A MAI v. Peak sort of case would not consider the copies at hand to be ephermeral just because they're short-lived.
In any event, 17 USC 117 provides a broad but limited exception for running and backing-up software. It would not be bad for it to be broader, however.
What's the difference? A court will look at what the nature of a transaction is, rather than the label the parties choose to put on it. If you say that you're leasing something out, forever, for an initial lump sum, what you've really done is sold it.
Copyright law and contract law are two distinct bodies of law, yes. However, contracts governing copyright licensing are absolutely commonplace, and breaching such a contract would give rise to causes of action for both copyright infringement and breach of contract.
In the commercial field, licenses typically take the form of an exchange of a promise for party A to be free to use a work, within certain conditions, and an exchange of party B to pay for that by promising money or something of value.
The GPL is substantially the same. The interesting part is that a condition has to arise (distribution) for party B to have to do the action it promised to do (distribute source) and that party A isn't the only beneficiary of party B's obligation. But that's about it for unusual things in the GPL.
I don't feel like getting into it so soon again (feel free to look through my recent posts), but the GPL is a contract. And while one could sue violators under either contract law or copyright law, or both simultaneously, the smart money would be on both simultaneously. You have to prove the elements of each offense, but since lack of authorization must be proven for the copyright infringement claim to succeed, you're already doing this anyway. If you win, you can not only get extra damages (stacking the copyright and contract damages together) but may be able to get injunctive relief from the copyright action that wouldn't normally be available in a contract dispute.
As for SOX, I'll leave that for people more familiar with it.
On what possible basis could someone say that they have a right to take copyrighted code belonging to someone else and modify and redistibute it in a way the copyright holder doesn't approve.
Given the right circumstances, fair use.
To launch the Beagle search UI is a single keypress: F12. On Spotlight it's a double keystroke: command spacebar. Advantage: Beagle.
That's a simplistic analysis. Since users will generally type in their search terms, their hands will be in the main section of the keyboard. That means that it is easier to press Cmd-Space than F12, since the former is located closer to where their hands are. In fact, it's easy to do with one thumb, since the two keys are next to one another. To hit F12 on most keyboards, you can't just reach over, you have to move your hand over.
It depends on how well funded your school is. If you're still using pre-Civil War history books, the mistake is understandable.
Forget Alice, drew may very well not be motivated by the possibility of future earnings, but may be very well be motivated by the possibility of future payments in kind.
/., or intraoffice memos are not worth copyrighting, and really shouldn't be copyrighted -- copyright should be reserved for published material such as books or videos or music or pamphlets.)
That's still an economic benefit. Non-economic benefits would be things such as fame, or creating art for art's sake, or creating art and exploiting it economically not in a way dependant on copyrights. This latter would include artists who might make a piece where the value is in the copy, rather than the work, or where the value is in that they made it, regardless of whether someone else made a perfect duplicate. For example, Picasso often paid his bills with little sketches. The value was that people would pay a lot for a work made by him. If I drew the same thing, no one would care. If I tried to sell copies of the same thing, it still wouldn't have cut into his earnings because he made money regardless of copyright.
So if you want rights in someone else's derivative work based on your work, the appropriate thing to do is to get a copyright and trade on its value to get what you want, if you can. But if you indicate no interest in exploiting your work's economic value, however you would do so, you still shouldn't get those rights anyway.
Basically, you keep giving authors rights at the expense of the public. Where this serves the public interest, that's fine, but when it doesn't, it's not tolerable. Artists that didn't care about getting rights, and who didn't create their work in order to get rights in it, shouldn't get those rights. Granting them would be like paying money for something you got for free. It's wasteful. And it's not even your money that you're paying with.
It simply costs too much to determine if something is copyrigth or in the public domain. My idea would fix that for many.
How? If you're unwilling to require people to fill out a form or put notice on their works, then why do you think you can require people to put a GPL-notice on their works. For unregistered works, you're still in the dark.
My system would be to make registration manditory in order to get a copyright, along with notice. If you found a copy of a work without notice, you'd know you were ok. If you wanted to check, you could consult the Copyright Office database, just like you can search the PTO database for patents and trademarks. (Of course, part of my agenda would be setting up a good copyright search database, and swiftly terminating old copyrights so that we rapidly need only deal with the new system)
But they are not, as now run, so easy to comply with, especially as results to a remix culture. I may make only a small contribution to a program, but I wan't my copyright because it puts me at the table, but if I make many such small contributions, I can end up paying a significant amount when I have no intentions of earning from it. I am already paying enough in my time for what I am giving to the world.
Well, I'm not psychic. I cannot differentiate between Alice, who modifies a work with the intent of pursuing some kind of economic benefit, whether as money or a viral GPL, and Bob, who modifies a work to feel good about himself, and needs no further reward.
Formalities are just a way for Alice to step forward and make herself stand out from Bob. It is appropriate to shift the burden on to her; she is best at knowing her own motives and identifying herself.
They also tend to keep Alice from trying to get rights on absolutely trivial things, though even very modest things are acceptable since the burden is still quite low. (E.g. posts on
I may very well not want this but not be able to afford the registration fee and so will not publish my work untill I can get the money together.
If you can't get $30 + postage + cost of a couple of best copies,
4-6 of the GPL only require that you comply with the license in order to keep your rights under the license, conditions indicating acceptance, and the pay-it-forward model the GPL uses. None of those hinge on a source/object code model.
Remember, source code is defined in the GPL: The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. In the case of a movie, that could be a film negative or or all the various elements that went into making the movie. Tough to say, without having an expert witness from the movie industry. But it doesn't have to be in C or anything. It would have to be machine readable, but that's not too difficult in this day and age. Some creative interpretation of what object code is might be required, but given that the drafters apparently intended for non-software works to be covered, a court shouldn't have trouble with that.
What is actually being granted to the recipient of a supposedly GPL-licensed movie? The privilege to form a production crew and matching cast to generate a facsimile, with one's own modifications that must be detailed to downstream recipients who wish to do the same?
Probably copies of the materials that were edited together to form the movie (video and audio) in the form of elements (e.g. all the pieces of film used to create one shot, and the individual sound effects and pieces of dialog over it) so that someone can re-edit the movie, add parts to it, take parts away, etc. If they want to do that by restaging shots, they could, but I think that it's not preferred enough to require every single detail to be included.
Read it lately?
This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License.
I don't see anything that would preclude distributing works other than software under the GPL. It might not be a good fit, and there are things like the FDL, which could be better, but I think it's at least possible. And I seem to recall having seen it happen before for art or something, but I don't recall the precise details.
What I have a problem with is them making a derivative, adaptation, etc. of my work, copyrighting it, and keeping that work closed off from my further adaptation and exploitation, etc.
Let's back up here:
First, remember that a derivative copyright is limited only to the derivative work. For example, if I make a movie based on a popular public domain fairy tale, such as Snow White, I cannot prevent third parties from also making movies based on that story. Only the new contributions I've made are protectable by me.
See, the situation we're looking at is where Alice writes a book, but cannot be bothered to go through a simple procedure to copyright it. Thus we can assume that Alice was not encouraged to write her book by the possibility of future earnings derived from it. The book is in the public domain, as a result. If the book is in the public domain, and Bob writes a sequel (which would be unlawful if the book were copyrighted), then I see no problem with that.
Now, the goal of copyright is to maximize the net public benefit, which consists of encouraging the creation of original works, encouraging the creation of derivative works, encouraging publication, having no or minimal restrictions on the public's enjoyment of the work (i.e. having the least possible copyright), and putting the work into the public domain as fast as possible (which furthers promote publication, public enjoyment, and creation of derivatives).
Whether Alice writes a sequel, or Bob writes a sequel, I don't actually care. The goal is to get these derivative works written. If we give a copyright to Alice, who appears not to care, given her behavior, we're unlikely to get a sequel; copyright is providing no incentive for her, or she would have evidenced that it was by seeking out a copyright, and Bob is not allowed to write one. If we don't give a copyright to Alice, then Bob is free to write a sequel (as is Alice), and we get something. Bob can't prevent Alice from writing her own sequels. And the same thing applies to Bob as applied to Alice -- if he wants a copyright on the material he's added to the material derived, he has to evidence this with some affirmative steps. Nothing difficult, but enough to determine who wants a copyright, and who doesn't care.
Boiled down, you're saying that because Alice didn't care about a copyright on her book, Bob shouldn't be allowed to get a copyright even if he does care, for no better reason than that he wrote a sequel to Alice's book. I just don't see how that's fair. Alice had her chance to exploit her book for whatever it was worth, and she didn't take it. She should be stuck with the consequences of that decision, whether she's happy with the outcome or not.
They do now, but under what you are proposing and the situation I laid out, my work would enter the public domain.
I meant that they vest with authors, if they vest with anyone. Bob cannot copyright the book Alice wrote. Alice can sell him the copyright. Or Bob can be the true author of the book, and Alice was just his employee, working for him (like how a secretary taking dictation isn't the author of what he's writing down). But people cannot snatch copyrights from the people they should rightfully vest in.
You may know the laws in your country, but do you know them in mine?
My apologies, but the default around here is to assume American law.
They may not be tightly coupled, but I would hate to see things being "fixed" but only in those areas that make it worse for the public in general and the small guys.
Formalities are good for the public in general, because they tend to ensure that copyright is limited to those that actually need it, it preserves copies of the work against future potential loss, and it provides notice to the public as to what they cannot copy, letting them safely assume that they can copy anything without notice.
And since they're so easy to comply with, they're perfectly fine for small authors, who are also exp
As an example, here is 17 USC 1201(a)(2):
Since the the statute uses the word 'or,' a product that satisfies any one criterion is unlawful to traffic in; satisfaction of all three criteria is not required.
The main problem is (a)(2)(B). Just because there are lawful uses to which a circumvention product may be put (such as in conjunction with a GPL'ed work or public domain works) that still tends to leave it with a limited commercially significant use. The Reimerdes court considered whether DeCSS could be lawful to traffic in, given that it could be used not only unlawfully to circumvent DRM for copyrighted movies, but also lawfully to circumvent DRM for public domain movies. Nevertheless, this was not a significant enough use, and DeCSS was not saved.
Therefore, Alice can sue Carol successfully, because there are a lot of Alices, and few Bobs.
I don't know if I see it that way. (hang on for typical /. car analogy) If the law says automobiles must have 5MPH bumpers, Ford can't just hand you a piece of paper that says "You agree that this is not an automobile". Either it is or it ain't, legally.
It's a little different.
Parties in a suit can stipulate as to various facts. This means that they agree, and therefore the court doesn't have to look into that fact. For example, if you sell me a car, and I sue over some defect that causes me injury, we might stipulate that some parts of the car are not involved, or are in their original condition. The case would then be restricted to just those areas that we are in disagreement over.
This would work the same way. A copyright holder can't sue for circumvention unless they claim that there is an effective TPM. If they've already stipulated that there isn't, it shuts them down right there.
It's not really equivalent to your analogy, since there's no requirement that works are encumbered with DRM or that it is effective. It's not like a regulation for safety purposes or something where there is an interest in protecting customers from themselves (if they agreed that they wanted to buy an unsafe car).
In any event, I'm sticking by my guns in that I think that the GPL should be totally exclusive of DRM. They're not reconcilable, and frankly, the latter should be wiped out. There is not a middle ground or acceptable compromise, IMO.
Nah, it's basically an admission. I don't think it's dubious in that respect, since non-effectiveness will be treated as a fact from the get-go.
My concern is that I don't think this part of the GPL will actually work. I think it will backfire in that people can take GPL'ed software, apply DRM to it (or their modifications of it) and effectively prevent anyone from making future modifications to it despite the fact that it is GPL'ed.
And I'm saying that if you have GPL'ed DRM'ed software, then it might as well not be GPL'ed because people who use the same DRM and not the GPL will sue people who take advantage of their rights under the GPL.
It's better to avoid the problem and ensure that GPL'ed software is honestly free by not allowing it to be DRM'ed at all.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Let us say that Alice makes a DVD encrypted with CSS. Bob makes a different DVD encrypted with CSS, and which is licensed under the GPL. Carol makes and distributes copies of DeCSS. And Dave wants to use Bob's work pursuant to the GPL.
Dave can circumvent CSS in order to decrypt Bob's DVD, per the GPL. He can arguably even make a tool (such as DeCSS) in order to do so, provided that he keeps it to himself. But Carol cannot make or distribute versions of DeCSS because Alice will sue her (and win). This means that if Dave is unable to make his own DeCSS, the fact that he is legally allowed to circumvent CSS is moot because he cannot do so as a practical matter.
Therefore, I suggest that the GPL state that works covered by the GPL may not be DRM'ed at all. This doesn't extend to all the works Bob has made or will make, which is where you seem to have gotten confused. Bob would be free to make one DVD with CSS which is not under the GPL, and free to make another DVD under the GPL, but without CSS.
Since it's not safe to assume that Dave will be able to meaningfully take advantage of his rights under the GPL, vis-a-vis DRM'ed works, I think the appropriate thing to do is to make sure that the GPL and DRM are exclusive of one another.
This also means that if Dave makes his own version of Bob's DVD, he could not add DRM to it (which might block Bob as well as other users).
Fundamentally, I think that allowing GPL'ed works to be DRM'ed is contrary to the goals of the GPL.
It's muddled right now. First it says that any DRM applied is not the type of DRM protected by the DMCA. Then it says that what it means is that permission is granted for circumvention. That's not the same thing, though I think it should have statements indicating that the licensee is agreeing that any DRM is ineligible for protection and that alternatively, permission to circumvent it is given.
Of course, this doesn't help enough, IMO. Let's say that someone released a movie under the GPL, and that it was on DVD and encrypted with CSS. Even though everyone has permission to circumvent it under the GPL, and the author is stating that CSS -- as used there -- is unprotected, this doesn't help. Third party movie studios can still claim that CSS is effective, and that a tool used to decrypt CSS, being just as able to circumvent the DRM on their movies as on the GPL'ed movie, is unlawful under the trafficking provisions of the statute. Thus, by using a commonplace DRM system, even though a person is releasing a work under the GPL, the DRM is still effective in keeping people from circumventing it even though they have a right to do so.
Better for the GPL to simply deny licensees the right to use DRM of any kind on relevant works.
It could very well be that not having a copyright to make money from my work might not be a disincentive, but that the possibility of others making money from my work and copyrighting it may very well do so,
That seems odd to me, and rather childish. I mean, your position basically is that if you can't make profits from the work, then no one can. Given that I have no problem with people exploiting a work for its full value (it's just as silly to let a profitable work languish as it is to let fruit rot on the vine) I don't care whether third parties do it if the author isn't going to. Someone should.
Also n.b. that copyrights vest in the authors of works. The copyrights can be transferred to others, and sometimes you can be surprised as to who really is the author, but if anyone gets them to begin with, it's the author. So you've no legitimate worries about other people copyrighting your work away from you.
especially in the case where those others have shown the willingness to push for the passage of laws which result in jail time of up to five years for the simle posession of a non-bonafide dvd or cd which I may have bought in innocence.
Possession of an unlawfully made copy isn't infringing. Making the copy or distributing it are what's infringing.
Personally, I don't think I would like to see the registration and deposit requirements reinstituted unless the copyright terms were dropped to forteen years at the same time. I think people ought to be able to build upon the works that were current in their childhood.
I agree about the last part -- although I think it's that we should not cause our children to have to suffer copyrights dating from our generation -- but I think that we need formalities regardless of term length. They're not that tightly related anyway.