The purpose of a patent is to give a person or group the exclusive benefit of their labor for a time, thereby allowing them to recoup the investment that went into producing whatever it was they invented.
No. Because if it were the case that we gave a rat's ass about inventors, we'd just dole out money to them. We certainly wouldn't require disclosure and timely filing and such.
No, the purpose of the patent system is made quite clear in the Constitution, in patent systems dating back to Venice, and it is to benefit the public. The public benefits when inventions are not only created, but are free for everyone to do what they like with. Paying inventors is, in fact, harmful. And the only way that it's good to pay inventors is if the harm caused by paying them is offset by the greater good of their invention entering the public domain.
Good, yet more tools to make it even harder for authors to make a living? Imagine a post-RIAA world, do you still think it's perfectly cool to copy their stuff and give nothing in return?
Well, I'm a self-interested person. So why should I care about authors either way? OTOH, the prospect of free stuff is immediately appealing to me.
So if you want me to willingly turn my back on free stuff, you'd better be offering me something even better. I think it's entirely possible to do so, and I'm always going to opt for whatever leaves me the most well-off.
Are you offering me something better than free stuff?
And please don't sit on a high horse -- authors are also self-interested, or they wouldn't care about getting paid in the first place. So we all occupy the same moral ground.
Frankly, I'm still puzzled why so many people refuse to see the inherent connection between the 1st and 2nd amendments. For Pete's sake, they're RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
That doesn't really mean a hell of a lot. The Bill of Rights consisted of twelve proposed amendments. Only ten were passed initially, and the eleventh just finally did not all that long ago. The order they're in doesn't really mean anything. After all, the fourteenth amendment is also of critical importance.
When you buy a movie (DVD), ~$1.50 is going towards the actual cost of the media. The remaining ~$18.50 is you, the consumer, purchasing in-home viewing rights from the creator, the studio.
No. When you buy a movie, anything you pay over the costs involved is profit to the seller. Copyrights do not cover private performances -- the right to do so derives from lawful posession of the movie. You're not paying for such rights, particularly, however. Nor could they deny them to you as part of a simple sale.
OTOH, copyright DOES cover public performances, and since you don't get copyrights by virtue of buying a copy of a work, you are limited with regards to that.
You ARE allowed to make a personal copy of a book for archival purposes.
Show me where it says this. And don't quote 17 USC 108 at me, since that very specifically only applies to libraries, and it sounds like you're saying that even non-libraries get to make such copies.
Sure it is - you are allowed to time shift broadcasts, you are allowed to tape your vinyl or CD... AFAIR this was explicitly stated in consumer home recording acts.
You aren't necessarily allowed to time shift. As with all fair uses, it may or may not apply depending on the circumstances involved.
And whenever Congress specifically allows something, like the AHRA, which doesn't apply to the matter at hand anyway, it doesn't matter if it's fair or not, it's a special-case exemption anyway. In such an instance, courts won't even try to see if it would also be fair, because it wouldn't matter either way.
One, EULAs have never shown to be legally binding.
Oh yes they have. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). Please read it and try again.
Do you need to agree to the EULA to run it? Of course not:
That's true, OTOH. There's nothing that says software has to have a EULA. I can give away copies just like books or anything else, and your rights to use it derive from your lawful posession of it (and n.b. 17 USC 117 -- and note that it doesn't cover licensed copies!)
Minors can't enter into contracts. Can only people 18+ buy games?
Minors can enter into contracts. It's just that they can also get out of them relatively easily. There's a difference.
2- They are amending the terms of sale, after the sale has taken place. This is not legal.
I agree, but see ProCD. There are two different sets of provisions in the UCC that might be applicable. One is used by the ProCD court to support EULAs, the other can be seen in Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
It's still not settled which is going to win out in the end.
3- Contract laws require that you actually receive something in exchange for what you are offering. Now, the theory behind the EULA is that your computer (and through extension, you) makes a copy when you run it, as such, you need a license to copy. However, Copyright law specifically allows fair use [cornell.edu], which allows you to do more than the EULA anyway, and copyright law lets you make copies anyway. As such, you are literally getting nothing in return.
You are confusing fair use with 117 (which applies even where fair use would not, provided it applies at all) but the argument is that the quid pro quo is part of the sale to begin with.
4- Click-through agreements have never been shown to count as a legal agreement
Yes they have, countless times. And there have been laws to ensure it, such as UETA and the ESIGN Act.
The reality is, the companies who use EULAs are abusing the system, and trying to treat a license like a contract. It is not. A license doesn't have any of the above issues (the GPL is, for example, a license).
They are basically the same thing, Groklaw be damned. While I agree we ought to stamp out EULAs, I see this as being only a smaller aspect of stamping out after-the-fact agreements between nonmerchants, and stamping out adhesive contracts generally. For agreements in the vein of the GPL et al, I'd be prepared to give a special pass, as they're actually useful. But they are still members of a pretty bad family of contracts.
It comes down to whether we have the right to distribute software that we have created (from scratch).
Well, your right to distribute software can only fall under free speech, and there are certainly those who claim there are limits to that. You can't freely distribute libelous material -- you'll get sued.
OTOH, you can copyright works that you can't legally do anything with. Copyrights are not rights TO do things, they are rights to EXCLUDE OTHERS from doing things. So if you write something libelous, you can not only not distribute it, you can prevent others from doing so too. Ditto for software.
DRM IS ok, because its not telling you anything but dont pirate music, its saying your allowed to put it on 5 computers, unlimited iPods, and 7 burns. Anyone who does more than that is obviously pirating and should be punished.
Well, that's not just wrong, it's stupid of you.
Anything that satisfies the four-part test in 17 USC 107 is a fair use. It is by definition NOT copyright infringement to engage in such actions. And since whether any particular action might qualify is based on the circumstances involved, as opposed to the general class of action, you are moronically preventing a lot of stuff that's perfectly legal.
Furthermore, you're just fucking shortsighted. Copyrights are of limited duration. The Constitution requires it, the law on the books sets a finite time -- what do you think happens when the music in question enters the public domain as it inevitably will? That the DRM will just magically vanish? No. It will still be on there, and even though the music will be free for the entire public to enjoy and totally lacking in copyrights, people still won't be able to use it as they see fit.
Thus it is clear to anyone at all who considers the copyright system as a whole, and who values the ultimate purpose of copyright, that DRM must be destroyed utterly. It has to be completely eradicated such that no one ever dares to use it. Probably by voiding the copyright on any work that the copyright holder, or an authorized party, encumbers with DRM or allows to be so encumbered.
The law says your only allowed to circumvent it if the DRM is deemed outragous
Oh yeah? Then show me. Give me a citation to the law or case that says just that, dumbass.
A) only hackers and script kiddies would care about a DRM war, the general public will look down on them just as they do now.
So? I remember how the general public didn't care about lots of stuff -- unionizing, pollution, civil rights -- and how it took a lot of work by people that did care to convince the public that there was something important about these things.
You have a policy of knuckling under. Fuck that. Fuck you. The best way to bring these issues to light, and to win for the anti-DRM side, is to force them into the public eye in such a way that the public at large will reject DRM and will force the destruction of DRM.
No, he said legally. People in the US, at least, can't legally download from there. (And if you're gonna break the law anyhow, why pay for what you can get for free, and give people your credit card number besides?)
Fair use includes making a backup copy. I don't believe making a backup includes downloading one from the Internet (but that is open to interpretation).
actually the law is very clear about this. it says you may make a backup copy for your own personal use and your use only - not anyone else's.
Excellent. Since it is so clear, you won't mind posting a cite to the specific statute or case involved. Because in fact, that's not what it says. Nor is what you think it doesn't say, what it says.
Fair use includes making a backup copy. I don't believe making a backup includes downloading one from the Internet (but that is open to interpretation).
No, fair uses are whatever specific uses, based on their own circumstances, that pass the fair use analysis that can be seen at 17 USC 107, among other places.
One person can make a backup copy fairly, and another person cannot.
It depends on the circumstances involved in each of their specific cases. Fair use has to be analyzed anew every time; you can't just make blanket statements as to what is and isn't fair. Any kind of thing though, could potentially be a fair use, under the right circumstances.
Nothing special there -- when I was an undergrad, living the dorms in the Boston area, we had ordinary keys, and we still propped the door open and held it for other people.
Locked doors to common areas are annoying as hell.
What can I say? Copyright is, and always has been for centuries, a utilitarian construct.
The Statute of Anne of 1710 styled itself as an act for public learning. The Constitution empowers Congress to pass copyright laws, for the promotion of progress of science. It's been well-recognized by pretty much everyone who matters in this country, all the way back to Jefferson at least.
And to be honest -- the notion of private property basically has utilitarian roots as well, though it worked out organically, before anyone really knew why it tended to shape itself the way it did.
Copyright simply doesn't make sense, doesn't work, and is intolerable, when it isn't utilitarian. And hell, that should be obvious: if an author wants the right to tell me not to do something, then the first thing out of my mouth is going to be "well, what's in it for me if I agree?"
And why the heck would copyright be repealed? What a ridiculous straw man. It's even in the U.S. constitution
Well... the Constitution doesn't create copyright laws, nor does it even require there to be any. Congress could shut everything down tomorrow if they wanted to. It just EMPOWERS Congress to pass such laws.
The reason is that prior to the Constitution, each state had their own copyright laws -- or none at all -- and it wasn't working out well. It was just one of those things that the rather loose Articles of Confederation United States wasn't good at. So, like post offices, interstate commerce, money minting, and so forth, the federal government was given power over it. (And even then, there were some residual state copyright laws for a long time, and you still see just a few)
american copyright law fails to distinguish copyright and "moral right" like european law does
Well, other errors aside, that's because there is no such thing as moral rights, and the concept is unconstitutional, non-utilitarian, and thoroughly disgusting. In sum: moral rights are bullshit.
Mainly, it sucks that in order to get the full protection of copyright, I have to submit a print to the copyright office to register it.
No, that's right and proper. First, if you want a copyright, it's important that you tell the world just what, precisely, you're trying to copyright. A sample is perfect for that. Second, the Copyright Office is a branch of the Library of Congress, and the purpose of copyright generally is to expand the scope of knowledge. If they have a copy of your photograph, they'll preserve it so that it won't be lost if at all possible. And it'll be available to the public to look at, and once the copyright expires, to copy. The LoC has a gigantic collection, and they get a lot of it through copyright deposits.
Frankly, this is just the cost of doing business. You can't reasonably expect to get something for nothing, can you? If you want a copyright, you need to submit a best copy of the work. It would be foolish of the public to give you a copyright for free, and it's hardly a notable cost. In the circumstance that a copy for deposit IS more than the copyright is worth, then your smart choice is to not get a copyright.
Now, I would say that it's possible that the LoC needs to start thinking about accepting digital best copies for deposit, but since they are interested in preserving works for as long as possible, and since computer media and formats change all the damn time, I'm willing to bet that they have a good reason for wanting prints. I sincerely doubt that it is intended to annoy you.
Well, there are really a lot of areas that need work. Copyright, unlike, say, trademarks or patents, needs to be redone from scratch.
I think that one reform that would be desirable would be to make any otherwise infringing activity by natural persons, that is noncommercial, noninfringing.
This would allow Alice to copy something and give it to Bob. It would not allow Alice to sell it to Bob (even at cost), nor would it allow Carolcorp to copy it at all, even if only to give it away.
I don't think that it would particularly interfere with the GPL (though EULAs are going to have to go, for the most part). True, Alice could modify a GPLed work and not have to honor the GPL, since her personal actions, more or less, wouldn't be bound by copyright. OTOH, Microsoft would still be stuck having to abide by the GPL if it came up.
The problem there is this is a game that will be won by the very largest corporations with huge distribution channels. This will not open the market for common people - it will just mean stuff gets snatched up by megacorporations and resold with their name on it. How do you prevent that?
Aside from the above? (which is rather similar to the existing 17 USC 1008, incidentally)
Mostly I wouldn't care all that much. So long as the public is being left better off than otherwise, I really don't care how it happens. My ideas are just methods that I think will result in the desired outcome, but I'm open to alternatives that seem more assured of public benefit.
Everybody, basically. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has, or knows how to use a computer. Not everybody wants to read, listen to music, or watch videos on a computer.
The printing press was invented in about 1454. The first copyright law didn't appear until 1710. Historically, publishers have hated copyrights, which were passed despite them.
The trick is, you have to be more responsive. Whenever something comes out that there is a demand for, you print 'em up fast and get as much of the initial market as possible, before it's a commodity. Witness paperback copies of the Starr Report that were in stores within days of its release. Then, the other half is to print somewhat smaller runs of works that are commodities, but which are priced accordingly. I can walk into about any bookstore and buy copies of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Melville, and so forth. Their works have been in the public domain for ages, if not forever, but continue to be mildly steady sellers.
The fact that there are pirates that SELL copies of the things they've pirated should attest to the fact that there's always a buyer for damn near anything, even when you can get it from anywhere. Just because something is universally available doesn't mean you automatically have one already.
Would they stop wholesale flagrant infringement?
Probably. If for no other reason than that the wholesale flagrant activities going on right now would probably be legalized. The repeal of Prohibition sure as hell stopped people from drinking illegally. Didn't stop drinking itself, though.
I think that at this point, any reasonable copyright reform is going to require that any otherwise infringing acts which are not for commercial gain, which are performed by natural persons, is not infringing.
Which is probably your largest bit of flagrant infringement right there. At least, it certainly is in terms of people involved, and so fewer people would be acting lawlessly, anyhow.
There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
Well, this is woefully incorrect. Most wholesale infringement is simply not a fair use. HOWEVER, any use is capable of being a fair use; it all depends on the specific circumstances involved. So if you foreclose an entire class of use -- e.g. reproduction -- then you are necessarily trampling on fair uses. This is the problem with DRM. It is stupid, and it cannot allow fair uses through while barring infringing uses. Given that federal judges and justices have had arguments in various cases, there is no reason to believe that any stupid, mindless machine will ever be able to do a good job of this.
Of course, since you can get the bejeezus sued out of you for infringements, who gives a rat's ass? It's always an available remedy, and it's a much better one.
Nobody respects the law now. Why would any new legislation change anything?
Well, the law right now is completely unworthy of respect. No one respected prohibition. But there's considerably more respect for the laws pertaining to alcohol that we have now. It's not perfect, but then you should be smart enough to expect that there will always be a bit of illegal activity going on, and that even what we have after reforms might not be ideal either.
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Followed by crazy-huge upsurges in the network, storage, and publishing industries, to whom the doors are wide open.
But most reformers aren't trying for a total repeal. I for one just want sensible copyright laws that more or less fit the contours of people's ordinary common sense anyhow (making it that less likely that people would even want to do something illegal). Shorter terms, strict formalities, more exemptions for ordinary people. It's a damn far cry from repeal.
The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible.
Patents have their own problems of late, but really the patent system is very good. All it needs are some minor changes, chiefly in stricter examinations and easier burdens on challengers.
Same deal for trademarks, basically. Get rid of the recently introduced (and foolish) dilution laws, leaving things at infringement, and that's about all the reform that's needed. Again, a total overhaul is not necessary, and AFAIK not called for.
Copyright is the most fucked up of all of these, but I think you'll find that most/. posters even would support a SANE system of copyrights. Just not what we've got right now.
The courts, however, might rule that one cannot patent things such as this-- there's little-to-no qualitative difference between folks patenting this and me patenting a method for a DDOS or patenting a method used in a computer virus. Depending on the judge, they may be in for a surprise if their patent goes to court.
Morality hasn't been a factor in patents for ages, and was inappropriate when it was. You can patent bad things.
But you're so set on your own interpretation, that ALL copies are infringing, that you're not even interested in listening to the possibility that the courts have decided otherwise.
Hm, not precisely. I don't like the current copyright laws, and if I had my way, I'd just outright legalize whatever natural persons did noncommercially with regards to copyrighted works. Among a host of other reforms that would shrink copyright substantially.
But I'm not going to delude myself as to what the prevailing interpretation by the courts is either. And I can read a statute pretty well also.
USC17.11.1101
That is just THE most malformed cite I've ever seen. Here's a quick lesson. When you're citing the United States Code, the citation should be in the form of title U.S.C. section/subsectionyear.
So for example, if citing the current subsection regarding the reproduction right of the copyright holder, it would go 17 U.S.C. 106(a) (2004).
Note that no one ever bother citing chapters. In fact, AFAIK the only time anyone notably bothers with chapters is in the bankruptcy statutes, which are all in Title 11. Chapter 7, 11, 13 -- those are groupings of statutes. And maybe the UCC. Possibly the IRC. But people still don't use them for citations.
Anyway, since/. is a fairly informal place, we can probably do without the periods and the year. Since Windows is a piece of crap that doesn't let me easily type the character, we can probably leave it out as well, and write it as 17 USC 106(a), which still gets across what I'm trying to cite.
What you did, man, I seriously have no idea what the hell you're trying to point me to. I'm guessing that you mean 17 USC 1101, but it's hard to tell.
Anyway, where was I?
USC17.11.1101 (note: still illegal if fixation occurs outside of US),
Oh, right, you probably mean 17 USC 1101(a). This is one of those sort of oddball facets of copyright that isn't contained in 106. Most of them don't come up often. 1201 probably is the most well known of this sort.
Basically there was what was felt to be a loophole -- if a performance was totally extemporaneous, there was nothing whatsoever fixed, and since fixation is the sine qua non of a copyrighted work for some stupid reason, the performance was NOT copyrighted. This allowed unlimited bootlegging.
This section eliminates that, treating the fixation by the bootlegger as a fixation that basically gives rise to a copyright. To top things off, it's illegal for the bootlegger to have so fixed the work, and having done so, it's illegal to transmit it or distribute it.
Anyhow, all 1101(a)(3) says is that it doesn't matter where the fixation occurs. But I really don't see your point in citing it. What were you trying to prove with this?
USC17.11.115 (note the distinction between incidental copies and non-incidental, and the distinction between delivery of a full copy and a listenable, but not keepable, datastream),
I'm going to guess that you were talking about 17 USC 115.
115(c) says that royalties are due when copies are distributed physically or by digital transmission. (which highlights the fact that they're different, which is what I've been saying)
It does distinguish between distribution where a copy is preserved as opposed to distribution where it's basically performance in the end. But that's for rate-setting. Neither situation is considered exempt from copyright provisions.
In fact, such distinctions are eliminated when we get to the rather telling 115(c)(3)(H), which reads:
A digital phonorecord delivery of a sound recording is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and section 509, unless (I) the digital phonorecord delivery has been authorized by the copyright owner of the sound recording; and (II) the owner of the copyr
Ephemeral copies in transitory communications. Exempt.
You are of course talking about 17 USC 512(a), dealing with "Transitory Digital Network Communications." It's just a little easier to cite the USC than the particular act in question.
Sadly, you're wrong, probably because you looked at the name of the subsection, and not the actual content of it.
But I'm willing to go through it carefully. I have redacted 512(a) below, to highlight some relevant parts. Any emphasis is my own.
A service provider shall not be liable... for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if: (1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider....
Now then. If Carol downloads from this site, she is not only not a service provider, she is also the person who has initiated or directed the transmission of the material, making her ineligible for the 512(a) safe harbor again.
Furthermore 512(i) is applicable to any of the four safe harbors of 512. It goes on to say:
The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider (A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and (B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
And 512(i)(A) is likely not satisfied -- making Carol ineligible for 512 altogether -- because she's not a service provider, doesn't have subscribers and so forth, hasn't adopted and reasonably implemented a policy to boot them out, and so forth.
And how do we know she's not a service provider under 512(a) or the rest of 512? Because that's specifically defined in 512(k)(1):
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term ''service provider'' means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
She isn't her own provider -- she's herself, an end user. She utilizes other providers that offer her connections, but she has no connections of her own.
Who is protected by 512(a)? Her ISP, and the various ISPs that sit between her and the Russians.
HOWEVER, going back to 512(a) for a moment, note where I emphasized "for infringement of copyright" etc. etc. Congress is not saying that such behaviors are NOT infringements of copyright otherwise; they're saying that the service provider isn't liable. If it's an infringement, however, you can bet that someone is prone to be liable for it. When Congress wants to make something noninfringing altogether, they say so -- as can be seen in 107 ("is not an infringement of copyright") or 109 (" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106").
That distinction is probably clearest with regards to 17 USC 1008, which makes some activities non actionable (i.e. not able to go to court) without actually making them legal. And yes, there is a difference -- for example, copyright law is nonactionable at the state level, since only federal courts are given jurisdiction to hear such cases.
I told you Alice and Bob was different. In Alice and Bob, a new copy of the work is being produced. In a network tra
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of a patent is to give a person or group the exclusive benefit of their labor for a time, thereby allowing them to recoup the investment that went into producing whatever it was they invented.
No. Because if it were the case that we gave a rat's ass about inventors, we'd just dole out money to them. We certainly wouldn't require disclosure and timely filing and such.
No, the purpose of the patent system is made quite clear in the Constitution, in patent systems dating back to Venice, and it is to benefit the public. The public benefits when inventions are not only created, but are free for everyone to do what they like with. Paying inventors is, in fact, harmful. And the only way that it's good to pay inventors is if the harm caused by paying them is offset by the greater good of their invention entering the public domain.
You need to watch it; you're being shortsighted.
Good, yet more tools to make it even harder for authors to make a living? Imagine a post-RIAA world, do you still think it's perfectly cool to copy their stuff and give nothing in return?
Well, I'm a self-interested person. So why should I care about authors either way? OTOH, the prospect of free stuff is immediately appealing to me.
So if you want me to willingly turn my back on free stuff, you'd better be offering me something even better. I think it's entirely possible to do so, and I'm always going to opt for whatever leaves me the most well-off.
Are you offering me something better than free stuff?
And please don't sit on a high horse -- authors are also self-interested, or they wouldn't care about getting paid in the first place. So we all occupy the same moral ground.
Yes, it was in front of Bug's Life.
Frankly, I'm still puzzled why so many people refuse to see the inherent connection between the 1st and 2nd amendments. For Pete's sake, they're RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
That doesn't really mean a hell of a lot. The Bill of Rights consisted of twelve proposed amendments. Only ten were passed initially, and the eleventh just finally did not all that long ago. The order they're in doesn't really mean anything. After all, the fourteenth amendment is also of critical importance.
When you buy a movie (DVD), ~$1.50 is going towards the actual cost of the media. The remaining ~$18.50 is you, the consumer, purchasing in-home viewing rights from the creator, the studio.
No. When you buy a movie, anything you pay over the costs involved is profit to the seller. Copyrights do not cover private performances -- the right to do so derives from lawful posession of the movie. You're not paying for such rights, particularly, however. Nor could they deny them to you as part of a simple sale.
OTOH, copyright DOES cover public performances, and since you don't get copyrights by virtue of buying a copy of a work, you are limited with regards to that.
You ARE allowed to make a personal copy of a book for archival purposes.
Show me where it says this. And don't quote 17 USC 108 at me, since that very specifically only applies to libraries, and it sounds like you're saying that even non-libraries get to make such copies.
Out of curiosity, what would schools be sued for, exactly? Before answering, please note the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions in 17 USC 512.
Sure it is - you are allowed to time shift broadcasts, you are allowed to tape your vinyl or CD... AFAIR this was explicitly stated in consumer home recording acts.
You aren't necessarily allowed to time shift. As with all fair uses, it may or may not apply depending on the circumstances involved.
And whenever Congress specifically allows something, like the AHRA, which doesn't apply to the matter at hand anyway, it doesn't matter if it's fair or not, it's a special-case exemption anyway. In such an instance, courts won't even try to see if it would also be fair, because it wouldn't matter either way.
One, EULAs have never shown to be legally binding.
Oh yes they have. ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir., 1996). Please read it and try again.
Do you need to agree to the EULA to run it? Of course not:
That's true, OTOH. There's nothing that says software has to have a EULA. I can give away copies just like books or anything else, and your rights to use it derive from your lawful posession of it (and n.b. 17 USC 117 -- and note that it doesn't cover licensed copies!)
Minors can't enter into contracts. Can only people 18+ buy games?
Minors can enter into contracts. It's just that they can also get out of them relatively easily. There's a difference.
2- They are amending the terms of sale, after the sale has taken place. This is not legal.
I agree, but see ProCD. There are two different sets of provisions in the UCC that might be applicable. One is used by the ProCD court to support EULAs, the other can be seen in Klocek v. Gateway, Inc. 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
It's still not settled which is going to win out in the end.
3- Contract laws require that you actually receive something in exchange for what you are offering. Now, the theory behind the EULA is that your computer (and through extension, you) makes a copy when you run it, as such, you need a license to copy. However, Copyright law specifically allows fair use [cornell.edu], which allows you to do more than the EULA anyway, and copyright law lets you make copies anyway. As such, you are literally getting nothing in return.
You are confusing fair use with 117 (which applies even where fair use would not, provided it applies at all) but the argument is that the quid pro quo is part of the sale to begin with.
4- Click-through agreements have never been shown to count as a legal agreement
Yes they have, countless times. And there have been laws to ensure it, such as UETA and the ESIGN Act.
The reality is, the companies who use EULAs are abusing the system, and trying to treat a license like a contract. It is not. A license doesn't have any of the above issues (the GPL is, for example, a license).
They are basically the same thing, Groklaw be damned. While I agree we ought to stamp out EULAs, I see this as being only a smaller aspect of stamping out after-the-fact agreements between nonmerchants, and stamping out adhesive contracts generally. For agreements in the vein of the GPL et al, I'd be prepared to give a special pass, as they're actually useful. But they are still members of a pretty bad family of contracts.
It comes down to whether we have the right to distribute software that we have created (from scratch).
Well, your right to distribute software can only fall under free speech, and there are certainly those who claim there are limits to that. You can't freely distribute libelous material -- you'll get sued.
OTOH, you can copyright works that you can't legally do anything with. Copyrights are not rights TO do things, they are rights to EXCLUDE OTHERS from doing things. So if you write something libelous, you can not only not distribute it, you can prevent others from doing so too. Ditto for software.
DRM IS ok, because its not telling you anything but dont pirate music, its saying your allowed to put it on 5 computers, unlimited iPods, and 7 burns. Anyone who does more than that is obviously pirating and should be punished.
Well, that's not just wrong, it's stupid of you.
Anything that satisfies the four-part test in 17 USC 107 is a fair use. It is by definition NOT copyright infringement to engage in such actions. And since whether any particular action might qualify is based on the circumstances involved, as opposed to the general class of action, you are moronically preventing a lot of stuff that's perfectly legal.
Furthermore, you're just fucking shortsighted. Copyrights are of limited duration. The Constitution requires it, the law on the books sets a finite time -- what do you think happens when the music in question enters the public domain as it inevitably will? That the DRM will just magically vanish? No. It will still be on there, and even though the music will be free for the entire public to enjoy and totally lacking in copyrights, people still won't be able to use it as they see fit.
Thus it is clear to anyone at all who considers the copyright system as a whole, and who values the ultimate purpose of copyright, that DRM must be destroyed utterly. It has to be completely eradicated such that no one ever dares to use it. Probably by voiding the copyright on any work that the copyright holder, or an authorized party, encumbers with DRM or allows to be so encumbered.
The law says your only allowed to circumvent it if the DRM is deemed outragous
Oh yeah? Then show me. Give me a citation to the law or case that says just that, dumbass.
A) only hackers and script kiddies would care about a DRM war, the general public will look down on them just as they do now.
So? I remember how the general public didn't care about lots of stuff -- unionizing, pollution, civil rights -- and how it took a lot of work by people that did care to convince the public that there was something important about these things.
You have a policy of knuckling under. Fuck that. Fuck you. The best way to bring these issues to light, and to win for the anti-DRM side, is to force them into the public eye in such a way that the public at large will reject DRM and will force the destruction of DRM.
Being a quisling is not going to help.
No, he said legally. People in the US, at least, can't legally download from there. (And if you're gonna break the law anyhow, why pay for what you can get for free, and give people your credit card number besides?)
Fair use includes making a backup copy. I don't believe making a backup includes downloading one from the Internet (but that is open to interpretation).
actually the law is very clear about this. it says you may make a backup copy for your own personal use and your use only - not anyone else's.
Excellent. Since it is so clear, you won't mind posting a cite to the specific statute or case involved. Because in fact, that's not what it says. Nor is what you think it doesn't say, what it says.
Fair use includes making a backup copy. I don't believe making a backup includes downloading one from the Internet (but that is open to interpretation).
No, fair uses are whatever specific uses, based on their own circumstances, that pass the fair use analysis that can be seen at 17 USC 107, among other places.
One person can make a backup copy fairly, and another person cannot.
It depends on the circumstances involved in each of their specific cases. Fair use has to be analyzed anew every time; you can't just make blanket statements as to what is and isn't fair. Any kind of thing though, could potentially be a fair use, under the right circumstances.
Nothing special there -- when I was an undergrad, living the dorms in the Boston area, we had ordinary keys, and we still propped the door open and held it for other people.
Locked doors to common areas are annoying as hell.
What can I say? Copyright is, and always has been for centuries, a utilitarian construct.
The Statute of Anne of 1710 styled itself as an act for public learning. The Constitution empowers Congress to pass copyright laws, for the promotion of progress of science. It's been well-recognized by pretty much everyone who matters in this country, all the way back to Jefferson at least.
And to be honest -- the notion of private property basically has utilitarian roots as well, though it worked out organically, before anyone really knew why it tended to shape itself the way it did.
Copyright simply doesn't make sense, doesn't work, and is intolerable, when it isn't utilitarian. And hell, that should be obvious: if an author wants the right to tell me not to do something, then the first thing out of my mouth is going to be "well, what's in it for me if I agree?"
And why the heck would copyright be repealed? What a ridiculous straw man. It's even in the U.S. constitution
Well... the Constitution doesn't create copyright laws, nor does it even require there to be any. Congress could shut everything down tomorrow if they wanted to. It just EMPOWERS Congress to pass such laws.
The reason is that prior to the Constitution, each state had their own copyright laws -- or none at all -- and it wasn't working out well. It was just one of those things that the rather loose Articles of Confederation United States wasn't good at. So, like post offices, interstate commerce, money minting, and so forth, the federal government was given power over it. (And even then, there were some residual state copyright laws for a long time, and you still see just a few)
american copyright law fails to distinguish copyright and "moral right" like european law does
Well, other errors aside, that's because there is no such thing as moral rights, and the concept is unconstitutional, non-utilitarian, and thoroughly disgusting. In sum: moral rights are bullshit.
Mainly, it sucks that in order to get the full protection of copyright, I have to submit a print to the copyright office to register it.
No, that's right and proper. First, if you want a copyright, it's important that you tell the world just what, precisely, you're trying to copyright. A sample is perfect for that. Second, the Copyright Office is a branch of the Library of Congress, and the purpose of copyright generally is to expand the scope of knowledge. If they have a copy of your photograph, they'll preserve it so that it won't be lost if at all possible. And it'll be available to the public to look at, and once the copyright expires, to copy. The LoC has a gigantic collection, and they get a lot of it through copyright deposits.
Frankly, this is just the cost of doing business. You can't reasonably expect to get something for nothing, can you? If you want a copyright, you need to submit a best copy of the work. It would be foolish of the public to give you a copyright for free, and it's hardly a notable cost. In the circumstance that a copy for deposit IS more than the copyright is worth, then your smart choice is to not get a copyright.
Now, I would say that it's possible that the LoC needs to start thinking about accepting digital best copies for deposit, but since they are interested in preserving works for as long as possible, and since computer media and formats change all the damn time, I'm willing to bet that they have a good reason for wanting prints. I sincerely doubt that it is intended to annoy you.
Well, there are really a lot of areas that need work. Copyright, unlike, say, trademarks or patents, needs to be redone from scratch.
I think that one reform that would be desirable would be to make any otherwise infringing activity by natural persons, that is noncommercial, noninfringing.
This would allow Alice to copy something and give it to Bob. It would not allow Alice to sell it to Bob (even at cost), nor would it allow Carolcorp to copy it at all, even if only to give it away.
I don't think that it would particularly interfere with the GPL (though EULAs are going to have to go, for the most part). True, Alice could modify a GPLed work and not have to honor the GPL, since her personal actions, more or less, wouldn't be bound by copyright. OTOH, Microsoft would still be stuck having to abide by the GPL if it came up.
The problem there is this is a game that will be won by the very largest corporations with huge distribution channels. This will not open the market for common people - it will just mean stuff gets snatched up by megacorporations and resold with their name on it. How do you prevent that?
Aside from the above? (which is rather similar to the existing 17 USC 1008, incidentally)
Mostly I wouldn't care all that much. So long as the public is being left better off than otherwise, I really don't care how it happens. My ideas are just methods that I think will result in the desired outcome, but I'm open to alternatives that seem more assured of public benefit.
Who is going to publish worthless information?
Everybody, basically. Not everyone has broadband. Not everyone has, or knows how to use a computer. Not everybody wants to read, listen to music, or watch videos on a computer.
The printing press was invented in about 1454. The first copyright law didn't appear until 1710. Historically, publishers have hated copyrights, which were passed despite them.
The trick is, you have to be more responsive. Whenever something comes out that there is a demand for, you print 'em up fast and get as much of the initial market as possible, before it's a commodity. Witness paperback copies of the Starr Report that were in stores within days of its release. Then, the other half is to print somewhat smaller runs of works that are commodities, but which are priced accordingly. I can walk into about any bookstore and buy copies of Shakespeare, Dickens, Twain, Melville, and so forth. Their works have been in the public domain for ages, if not forever, but continue to be mildly steady sellers.
The fact that there are pirates that SELL copies of the things they've pirated should attest to the fact that there's always a buyer for damn near anything, even when you can get it from anywhere. Just because something is universally available doesn't mean you automatically have one already.
Would they stop wholesale flagrant infringement?
Probably. If for no other reason than that the wholesale flagrant activities going on right now would probably be legalized. The repeal of Prohibition sure as hell stopped people from drinking illegally. Didn't stop drinking itself, though.
I think that at this point, any reasonable copyright reform is going to require that any otherwise infringing acts which are not for commercial gain, which are performed by natural persons, is not infringing.
Which is probably your largest bit of flagrant infringement right there. At least, it certainly is in terms of people involved, and so fewer people would be acting lawlessly, anyhow.
There is no point at which the "Fair Use supporters" will agree to stop wholesale infringement.
/. posters even would support a SANE system of copyrights. Just not what we've got right now.
Well, this is woefully incorrect. Most wholesale infringement is simply not a fair use. HOWEVER, any use is capable of being a fair use; it all depends on the specific circumstances involved. So if you foreclose an entire class of use -- e.g. reproduction -- then you are necessarily trampling on fair uses. This is the problem with DRM. It is stupid, and it cannot allow fair uses through while barring infringing uses. Given that federal judges and justices have had arguments in various cases, there is no reason to believe that any stupid, mindless machine will ever be able to do a good job of this.
Of course, since you can get the bejeezus sued out of you for infringements, who gives a rat's ass? It's always an available remedy, and it's a much better one.
Nobody respects the law now. Why would any new legislation change anything?
Well, the law right now is completely unworthy of respect. No one respected prohibition. But there's considerably more respect for the laws pertaining to alcohol that we have now. It's not perfect, but then you should be smart enough to expect that there will always be a bit of illegal activity going on, and that even what we have after reforms might not be ideal either.
If copyright is repealed (for example) 30% of the economy vanishes overnight.
Followed by crazy-huge upsurges in the network, storage, and publishing industries, to whom the doors are wide open.
But most reformers aren't trying for a total repeal. I for one just want sensible copyright laws that more or less fit the contours of people's ordinary common sense anyhow (making it that less likely that people would even want to do something illegal). Shorter terms, strict formalities, more exemptions for ordinary people. It's a damn far cry from repeal.
The number of people who would lose jobs that depend on copyright, patent and trademarks is incredible.
Patents have their own problems of late, but really the patent system is very good. All it needs are some minor changes, chiefly in stricter examinations and easier burdens on challengers.
Same deal for trademarks, basically. Get rid of the recently introduced (and foolish) dilution laws, leaving things at infringement, and that's about all the reform that's needed. Again, a total overhaul is not necessary, and AFAIK not called for.
Copyright is the most fucked up of all of these, but I think you'll find that most
So stop exaggerating.
The courts, however, might rule that one cannot patent things such as this-- there's little-to-no qualitative difference between folks patenting this and me patenting a method for a DDOS or patenting a method used in a computer virus. Depending on the judge, they may be in for a surprise if their patent goes to court.
Morality hasn't been a factor in patents for ages, and was inappropriate when it was. You can patent bad things.
But you're so set on your own interpretation, that ALL copies are infringing, that you're not even interested in listening to the possibility that the courts have decided otherwise.
/. is a fairly informal place, we can probably do without the periods and the year. Since Windows is a piece of crap that doesn't let me easily type the character, we can probably leave it out as well, and write it as 17 USC 106(a), which still gets across what I'm trying to cite.
Hm, not precisely. I don't like the current copyright laws, and if I had my way, I'd just outright legalize whatever natural persons did noncommercially with regards to copyrighted works. Among a host of other reforms that would shrink copyright substantially.
But I'm not going to delude myself as to what the prevailing interpretation by the courts is either. And I can read a statute pretty well also.
USC17.11.1101
That is just THE most malformed cite I've ever seen. Here's a quick lesson. When you're citing the United States Code, the citation should be in the form of title U.S.C. section/subsection year.
So for example, if citing the current subsection regarding the reproduction right of the copyright holder, it would go 17 U.S.C. 106(a) (2004).
Note that no one ever bother citing chapters. In fact, AFAIK the only time anyone notably bothers with chapters is in the bankruptcy statutes, which are all in Title 11. Chapter 7, 11, 13 -- those are groupings of statutes. And maybe the UCC. Possibly the IRC. But people still don't use them for citations.
Anyway, since
What you did, man, I seriously have no idea what the hell you're trying to point me to. I'm guessing that you mean 17 USC 1101, but it's hard to tell.
Anyway, where was I?
USC17.11.1101 (note: still illegal if fixation occurs outside of US),
Oh, right, you probably mean 17 USC 1101(a). This is one of those sort of oddball facets of copyright that isn't contained in 106. Most of them don't come up often. 1201 probably is the most well known of this sort.
Basically there was what was felt to be a loophole -- if a performance was totally extemporaneous, there was nothing whatsoever fixed, and since fixation is the sine qua non of a copyrighted work for some stupid reason, the performance was NOT copyrighted. This allowed unlimited bootlegging.
This section eliminates that, treating the fixation by the bootlegger as a fixation that basically gives rise to a copyright. To top things off, it's illegal for the bootlegger to have so fixed the work, and having done so, it's illegal to transmit it or distribute it.
Anyhow, all 1101(a)(3) says is that it doesn't matter where the fixation occurs. But I really don't see your point in citing it. What were you trying to prove with this?
USC17.11.115 (note the distinction between incidental copies and non-incidental, and the distinction between delivery of a full copy and a listenable, but not keepable, datastream),
I'm going to guess that you were talking about 17 USC 115.
115(c) says that royalties are due when copies are distributed physically or by digital transmission. (which highlights the fact that they're different, which is what I've been saying)
It does distinguish between distribution where a copy is preserved as opposed to distribution where it's basically performance in the end. But that's for rate-setting. Neither situation is considered exempt from copyright provisions.
In fact, such distinctions are eliminated when we get to the rather telling 115(c)(3)(H), which reads:
A digital phonorecord delivery of a sound recording is actionable as an act of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies provided by sections 502 through 506 and section 509, unless
(I) the digital phonorecord delivery has been authorized by the copyright owner of the sound recording; and
(II) the owner of the copyr
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
... for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider's transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if:
Title II, Section 512.
Ephemeral copies in transitory communications. Exempt.
You are of course talking about 17 USC 512(a), dealing with "Transitory Digital Network Communications." It's just a little easier to cite the USC than the particular act in question.
Sadly, you're wrong, probably because you looked at the name of the subsection, and not the actual content of it.
But I'm willing to go through it carefully. I have redacted 512(a) below, to highlight some relevant parts. Any emphasis is my own.
A service provider shall not be liable
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider....
Now then. If Carol downloads from this site, she is not only not a service provider, she is also the person who has initiated or directed the transmission of the material, making her ineligible for the 512(a) safe harbor again.
Furthermore 512(i) is applicable to any of the four safe harbors of 512. It goes on to say:
The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider
(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider's system or network who are repeat infringers; and
(B) accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures.
And 512(i)(A) is likely not satisfied -- making Carol ineligible for 512 altogether -- because she's not a service provider, doesn't have subscribers and so forth, hasn't adopted and reasonably implemented a policy to boot them out, and so forth.
And how do we know she's not a service provider under 512(a) or the rest of 512? Because that's specifically defined in 512(k)(1):
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term ''service provider'' means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
She isn't her own provider -- she's herself, an end user. She utilizes other providers that offer her connections, but she has no connections of her own.
Who is protected by 512(a)? Her ISP, and the various ISPs that sit between her and the Russians.
HOWEVER, going back to 512(a) for a moment, note where I emphasized "for infringement of copyright" etc. etc. Congress is not saying that such behaviors are NOT infringements of copyright otherwise; they're saying that the service provider isn't liable. If it's an infringement, however, you can bet that someone is prone to be liable for it. When Congress wants to make something noninfringing altogether, they say so -- as can be seen in 107 ("is not an infringement of copyright") or 109 (" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106").
That distinction is probably clearest with regards to 17 USC 1008, which makes some activities non actionable (i.e. not able to go to court) without actually making them legal. And yes, there is a difference -- for example, copyright law is nonactionable at the state level, since only federal courts are given jurisdiction to hear such cases.
I told you Alice and Bob was different. In Alice and Bob, a new copy of the work is being produced. In a network tra