Because RIAA (and software developers) lobbied for the change. CD rental stores are hardly unknown in the world -- they have them in Japan, IIRC. We would have them here as well, had there not been lobbying for that.
Feel free to try to get it changed. I won't stop you.
You're reading a hell of a lot into the previous poster's argument that he didn't say.
Personally, I think that copyright can be a very useful tool of a society in promoting the progress of knowledge.
But I do not believe that the copyright laws we currently have on the books are doing a good job of this. Indeed, I think that they are so harmful towards this goal, that we'd be better off with no copyright law whatsoever, though again I personally would very much prefer to have copyright laws, as long as they were the right sort.
Certainly I don't mind if someone makes a profit off of things that they produce. But it's not an entitlement. The mere fact of production does not entitle you to profit from it. Society may deem your product unacceptable legally (selling tainted food or mislabeled drugs or snake oil), or socially (i.e. flops in the marketplace -- remember Gigli?).
At best, you merely have an opportunity to profit.
And even this opportunity -- see the snake oil thing above -- may be rightly circumscribed.
This is particularly true in the case of copyright, which exists to promote the progress of knowledge, not to secure profits to particular people. (Though it is founded on a notion that if there are going to be profits, then at least they should be appropriately channeled.) Sometimes these two things will coincide, and promoting progress will go hand in hand with netting profits. Other times, they'll be opposed to one another.
As for me, I completely supported myself for several years as an artist, producing creative works, and I now study copyright law, and I too think that there is a very great need for reform.
(and I also snicker at Ayn Rand)
Now, another poster said this:
The real point he was making is: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world have ownership of them. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas.
To which I disagree vehemently.
There's clearly no natural right to any sort of property interest other than that property you can fend people off from with a stick. Certainly the total absence of copyrights prior to the rather recent year 1710 seems to support this notion. The concept of freedom of speech as a natural right, and as one that is totally opposed to copyrights (how can you have free speech without the freedom to repeat what someone else has said?) also helps demolish the silly proposal that there are natural property rights.
Property rights, be they real, personal, or intangible, are basically social constructs. And as with many other things in society, they're based in utiliarian doctrines, either organically without a recognition of this at the time, or explicitly, as in the case of copyrights.
That is to say, while it's nice that an author might claim to have a copyright, that alone is meaningless. Unless he convinces everyone else to respect that copyright and come down on his behalf on people who do not, his claim is as moot as if he said he owned the Moon. And why would other people ever bother respecting and enforcing his claim for him? Only because it is in their own self-interest to do so.
Sometimes it will not be in their self-interest to agree with an author. At these times, the author is up shit creek.
Thus, the earlier statement at least needs to be rephrased to bring it in line with reality. At least it needs to be: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world may or may not be granted ownership of them by the rest of the world, who gets to make that decision. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas but have no inherent right to dictate what other people might do with those ideas once created and distributed; such rights to control others must stem from the others who are sought to be controlled, and then only because those others voluntarily cede those rights, it bei
what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?
Well, if you actually did it, and they sue you, you're pretty hosed. Your best bet is to settle. There's little chance that you'd win if you went to court, and the expenses of a court battle are significant anyway.
As for what they can do, they can sue you, civilly, for copyright infringement. And there might be some other possible causes of action related to what you're doing, but the copyright one is the biggie.
As for the $150,000 number, that's from 17 USC 504. Basically, copyright infringement causes some damage to the RIAA members in terms of their ability to commercially exploit the works they hold copyrights on. They can sue for either their actual damages, or since that can be difficult to compute, statutory damages. The maximum possible statutory damage amount is $150,000 per work infringed upon. Of course whether the maximum will be applied is largely up to the judge. In these sorts of cases, it could be as low as $750 per infringement. But you'd be taking a big risk if you were betting that you could get it to be that low.
If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
Hm. Maybe.
Stealing the CD is a fairly minor act of conversion. I'd be more worried about criminal penalties for shoplifting than for a civil action.
Burning it though for others is certainly a copyright infringement again, however. Depending on the precise circumstances involved, there might be a defense based on 17 USC 1008 (but you HAVE to read 1001 for the definitions of the terms used in 1008) but I doubt that a court would accept that defense if it saw any way around it.
Anyway, the big difference between SCO and RIAA is that RIAA appears to have a legitimate complaint, and is not doing this to make money, but to discourage infringement. I suspect they're losing money doing this. SCO is less likely to have a legitimate complaint, and is really after money.
Yeah, my family's lab bit someone once. Only reason we no longer have to forcibly restrain him from going after strangers (he's very friendly to us and people he gets used to) is because he's so old he has trouble standing up.
Have you not taken a UCC class yet? Please read 68 F.3d 1447, 105 F.3d 1147, and 104 F.Supp.2d 1332.
There is a debate going on right now as to whether they are or not. Basically it hinges on whether the appropriate section of the UCC to apply is 2-204 or 2-207.
Personally, I'm a 2-207 man, myself. (i.e. that they're generally unenforcable) But I'd like to see some work done on forcing the issue with amendments to the UCC along those lines, rather than waiting for the courts to hash it all out.
No... the S.Ct. refused to hear the case. That doesn't mean that they agree, it just means that they had more important things. Don't read too much into a denial of cert.
Don't forget that if a conversation involves more than two parties, the video displays should divide themselves up. As in all else in life, Voltron provides the best example of this.
Sometimes they do. But it is rare. I had a Sony Trin that had a dead pixel on it -- but it only occurred after some years. I suspect that there was some kind of contaminant inside the tube that eventually did it. LCD dead pixels are much, much more common.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, what I originally was pointing out was that a) there is no general right of parties other than the copyright holder or people authorized by the copyright holder to make backup copies of copyrighted works due to 17 USC 106, b) that if backups are made, it has to be fair use, which always depends on the circumstances as tested per 17 USC 107 (maybe one backup is okay, maybe not; maybe one million backups are okay, maybe not), but that in addition c) there is a limited right for such people to make backup copies regardless of whether it's a fair use or not of computer software given the appropriate circumstances, per 17 USC 117.
Did I ever say that the GPL was _not_ a valid authorization made by the copyright holder to anyone who accepts the terms? No I did not. Because I think that the GPL is valid.
HOWEVER, that doesn't change the fact that 17 USC 106A is simply irrelevant to this discussion, as it only applies to authorizations by certain creators (not copyright holders) for certain types of creative works. Computer software, including Linux, is NOT one of the types of works that 106A is applicable to.
Is 17 USC 106 relevant? Sure. It establishes what rights are exclusive to the copyright holder; it doesn't stop him from authorizing other people to exercise the rights that he enjoys.
See, what you might have missed is that I think that the argument put forth by SCO which we are discussing in this thread is total bullshit. BUT I nevertheless will not hesitate to correct other people who are critical of it if those other people make unfounded or stupid claims. (e.g. that it is always legal to make one backup copy of anything you own a copy of, which is simply untrue)
I read this stuff on the can for God's sake. I live for copyright law. (though trademarks have their charms)
Anyway, 106A isn't relevant except in very rare cases, basically because it only applies to "works of visual art" which are defined narrowly in 101.
106a applies to any visual art except movies
Man, were you born this dumb or did you get dropped on your head as a kid? The law sayeth, in 17 USC 101:
A work of visual art does not include - (A) (i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication; (ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container; (iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii); (B) any work made for hire; or (C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.
Boy, how you could read all of that and wind up thinking that it only says movies is a pretty impressive feat.
And since computer software is a LITERARY WORK 106A may as well not even exist for purposes of the SCO issue which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what this whole hoo-hah is about.
And as for 106, so fucking what? I know 106. And I know that 117 -- which I had been quoting -- is an exception to 106. Just like you quoted, Subject to sections 107 through 122.... So I guess 117 is applicable after all.
106a has been used to show intent about transfer of ownership
Great! Show me some citations. Because normally when there's a statute being used for assignments, it's section 204 or 205. But you know what -- the GPL is not an assignment of rights. Rather, it is an authorization founded in the copyright holder's rights. For example, when my parents tell my sister that she can borrow the car, they don't sell her the car and give her the title to it. They authorize her to use it while they continue to own it.
Likewise, when a programmer GPLs his software, he keeps his copyright, but authorizes people in compliance with the GPL to exercise rights that are his exclusively to dole out or keep as he wishes.
The section you're quoting from -- and I had to search to find it because you didn't provide the actual citation -- is 17 USC 106A.
Which is TOTALLY NOT APPLICABLE.
106A ONLY applies to paintings, drawings, prints, photographs, sculptures where there is only one copy, or where there is a limited edition of no more than 200 copies which are signed and consequtively numbered by the artist, where the artist is still alive.
Are you seriously proposing that computer software such as Linux is in fact a painting of which there are no more than 200 copies, and where ALL the programmers have signed and numbered it?
No, I think the more likely explanation is that you are what we call in Latin, a 'Dorkus Malorkus' and that you have no idea of what the fuck you're talking about.
Any number of backups of anything would have to be fair use. One backup might not be okay in a given set of circumstances. A million might be just peachy keen in a different set.
But do note specific statutory exemptions relating to backups: 17 USC 117 and 1008, neither of which limits a person to a single backup (any number is okay) but they do set certain prerequisites that must be met prior to being able to use them.
US copyright law doesn't prevent the copyright holder or those persons authorized by the copyright holder from doing any damn thing with the works the copyright holder holds the copyrights on.
However, for the rest of us, the law does not guarantee us the right to make any backup copies. One, or two, or a million backup copies MAY be a fair use, but then again they may not be a fair use. You CANNOT make a blanket statement as to what is and is not a fair use. All uses claimed to be fair must be considered on the specific facts involved. The factors that will be looked at for ALL fair use cases (there are no automatic fair uses even in the law) are in 17 USC 109.
However, Congress can always specifically permit backup copies (or anything else) to be made regardless of whether or not it is fair. And they did so, at least partially.
If you are the owner of a copy of a computer program -- and note that this is entirely seperate from being the owner of the copyright (who could make copies regardless of what Congress has to say; clearly this doesn't refer to him) -- then you can make as many backup copies as you like (the law never says just one, and uses plurals implying that Congress expected there'd be more than one) provided that you don't keep those copies when you no longer have the original. There is a problem in that licensees aren't owners. But the GPL isn't a EULA -- it doesn't claim that the person who gets a copy of GPLed software is a licensee of the actual owner, instead apparently allowing the posessor of the copy to own that copy outright, as with a book, or a DVD, or a CD, none of which have licenses either normally. The specific law in question is 17 USC 117.
Copyrights are not set up to promote the useful arts. You're reading the Constitution wrongly, but this is not surprising because there was an interesting shift in language between now and the late 18th century when the Constitution was written (not far from where I am right now, here in Philadelphia).
The clause reads (I'm doing this from memory so forgive minor errors): "The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions"
The clause establishes Congress' power to grant copyrights and patents. Look at the structure of the clause:
science and useful arts authors and inventors writings and inventions
Each of the first terms refers to copyrights. Each of the second terms refers to patents. And that makes sense -- why would the framers muddle the meaning of the clause by flip-flopping the order of the terms relating to copyrights and patents?
See, in the 18th century, 'science' did not mean, the natural sciences such as physics, but rather it meant all knowledge generally. And furthermore, the 'arts' did not mean the fine arts, e.g. painting, but rather technical skills. The two terms didn't acquire the meanings we're familiar with until the 19th and 20th centuries. (consult the OED for more information)
So, for example, this is why the Patent Office was originally known as the Board of Arts, and why patents on inventions are known as Utility Patents -- because they're only granted for inventions that are somehow useful!
Knowledge generally, as is promoted by copyrights, does not need to be useful. In fact it's difficult to imagine how a painting or a movie or a song or a fictional story are useful. They may be appealing, but they have no practical function. In fact, copyrights cannot protect some sorts of works insofar as they have a practical function! (see the Utilty Doctrine)
Well, to be a little more accurate, any sort of infringement can be permitted by fair use. It's probably fair use to videotape something off of tv for my parents, and to give them the tape that I made. Fair use _may_ apply to any situation. And it _may_ not. You always have to run through the fair use analysis.
The traditional method is to find a vacant house (but not too blatantly vacant) and where the package can be delivered and left. When you expect something to arrive, keep an eye on the place so that you can get the package on the doorstep before someone else.
Alternatively, you might use someone else's address, if you felt you could intercept the package before they picked it up.
Yeah, however this creates a blocking problem. The original patent holder can use his patent except for the new non-obvious purpose patented, and the new patent holder can't use his at all, as it would infringe upon the earlier patent.
Generally it is hoped that they will come to some kind of agreement, as they have nowhere else to turn.
Property rights aren't an inherent human right, outside of perhaps things that you can carry with you at all times. Everything else basically involves common agreement. But people do agree, because they recognize that it's generally in their best interests to do so, at least to a certain extent.
This is true as well with regards to copyrights -- I'll thank you not to continue using the term 'intellectual property' if you're going to use it wrongly (it's a bad term anyway) -- but this is an easier example because copyrights only sprung up so recently.
Now, I do believe in inherent human rights, and I encourage people who don't believe in them to at least pretend that they do since it is safer. But that doesn't mean that every stupid little thing, such as property rights, are inherent.
Doesn't mean it isn't useful either. I think that property rights and copyrights -- if done properly -- are extraordinarily useful and oughtn't to be mucked about with. But their utility doesn't make them inherent either.
Let's look at Jefferson. I would imagine that he probably had some idea about the concept that there were inherent human rights which should be recognized and safeguarded. Although you should be a little worried, because he's the same guy that cribbed Locke when writing about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"... except that Jefferson put in the Happiness thing. Locke had property, and Jefferson didn't feel that to be appropriate. This might be telling, but let's continue.
Jefferson wrote a letter about patents which I feel is quite relevant here. This is going to be a rather long quote, but I enjoyed the language so much that I really did not want to sully it with various ellipses.
It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as a
Who knows. But he's right in that the program needs to be able to do that. Just because his habits working with the program are not the same as the developers' doesn't mean they're not valid. User testing is great for helping to discover issues the developers have been blind to -- sadly, it's one of the things that the Unix community is worst at. And fixing it yourself isn't often a viable option, even if it's possible.
Slashdot Mirror
The previous poster specifically mentioned CD rental.
Because RIAA (and software developers) lobbied for the change. CD rental stores are hardly unknown in the world -- they have them in Japan, IIRC. We would have them here as well, had there not been lobbying for that.
Feel free to try to get it changed. I won't stop you.
Unfortunately per 17 USC 109, in the US, rental of computer software (other than console games, basically) and and sound recordings is illegal.
I would term you a nut.
You're reading a hell of a lot into the previous poster's argument that he didn't say.
Personally, I think that copyright can be a very useful tool of a society in promoting the progress of knowledge.
But I do not believe that the copyright laws we currently have on the books are doing a good job of this. Indeed, I think that they are so harmful towards this goal, that we'd be better off with no copyright law whatsoever, though again I personally would very much prefer to have copyright laws, as long as they were the right sort.
Certainly I don't mind if someone makes a profit off of things that they produce. But it's not an entitlement. The mere fact of production does not entitle you to profit from it. Society may deem your product unacceptable legally (selling tainted food or mislabeled drugs or snake oil), or socially (i.e. flops in the marketplace -- remember Gigli?).
At best, you merely have an opportunity to profit.
And even this opportunity -- see the snake oil thing above -- may be rightly circumscribed.
This is particularly true in the case of copyright, which exists to promote the progress of knowledge, not to secure profits to particular people. (Though it is founded on a notion that if there are going to be profits, then at least they should be appropriately channeled.) Sometimes these two things will coincide, and promoting progress will go hand in hand with netting profits. Other times, they'll be opposed to one another.
As for me, I completely supported myself for several years as an artist, producing creative works, and I now study copyright law, and I too think that there is a very great need for reform.
(and I also snicker at Ayn Rand)
Now, another poster said this:
The real point he was making is: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world have ownership of them. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas.
To which I disagree vehemently.
There's clearly no natural right to any sort of property interest other than that property you can fend people off from with a stick. Certainly the total absence of copyrights prior to the rather recent year 1710 seems to support this notion. The concept of freedom of speech as a natural right, and as one that is totally opposed to copyrights (how can you have free speech without the freedom to repeat what someone else has said?) also helps demolish the silly proposal that there are natural property rights.
Property rights, be they real, personal, or intangible, are basically social constructs. And as with many other things in society, they're based in utiliarian doctrines, either organically without a recognition of this at the time, or explicitly, as in the case of copyrights.
That is to say, while it's nice that an author might claim to have a copyright, that alone is meaningless. Unless he convinces everyone else to respect that copyright and come down on his behalf on people who do not, his claim is as moot as if he said he owned the Moon. And why would other people ever bother respecting and enforcing his claim for him? Only because it is in their own self-interest to do so.
Sometimes it will not be in their self-interest to agree with an author. At these times, the author is up shit creek.
Thus, the earlier statement at least needs to be rephrased to bring it in line with reality. At least it needs to be: Those who bring creations and ideas into the world may or may not be granted ownership of them by the rest of the world, who gets to make that decision. They have the right to dictate under what terms they can create and distribute their own ideas but have no inherent right to dictate what other people might do with those ideas once created and distributed; such rights to control others must stem from the others who are sought to be controlled, and then only because those others voluntarily cede those rights, it bei
what to do if they sue you, what they can actually legally do, etc.?
Well, if you actually did it, and they sue you, you're pretty hosed. Your best bet is to settle. There's little chance that you'd win if you went to court, and the expenses of a court battle are significant anyway.
As for what they can do, they can sue you, civilly, for copyright infringement. And there might be some other possible causes of action related to what you're doing, but the copyright one is the biggie.
As for the $150,000 number, that's from 17 USC 504. Basically, copyright infringement causes some damage to the RIAA members in terms of their ability to commercially exploit the works they hold copyrights on. They can sue for either their actual damages, or since that can be difficult to compute, statutory damages. The maximum possible statutory damage amount is $150,000 per work infringed upon. Of course whether the maximum will be applied is largely up to the judge. In these sorts of cases, it could be as low as $750 per infringement. But you'd be taking a big risk if you were betting that you could get it to be that low.
If you go into a record store, steal the CD, go outside the store with your laptop, and start burning free copies for people walking in, would you fine be nearly as high?
Hm. Maybe.
Stealing the CD is a fairly minor act of conversion. I'd be more worried about criminal penalties for shoplifting than for a civil action.
Burning it though for others is certainly a copyright infringement again, however. Depending on the precise circumstances involved, there might be a defense based on 17 USC 1008 (but you HAVE to read 1001 for the definitions of the terms used in 1008) but I doubt that a court would accept that defense if it saw any way around it.
Anyway, the big difference between SCO and RIAA is that RIAA appears to have a legitimate complaint, and is not doing this to make money, but to discourage infringement. I suspect they're losing money doing this. SCO is less likely to have a legitimate complaint, and is really after money.
Yeah, my family's lab bit someone once. Only reason we no longer have to forcibly restrain him from going after strangers (he's very friendly to us and people he gets used to) is because he's so old he has trouble standing up.
Unsolicited callers are clearly infringing on MY rights.
Really? How?
Have you not taken a UCC class yet? Please read 68 F.3d 1447, 105 F.3d 1147, and 104 F.Supp.2d 1332.
There is a debate going on right now as to whether they are or not. Basically it hinges on whether the appropriate section of the UCC to apply is 2-204 or 2-207.
Personally, I'm a 2-207 man, myself. (i.e. that they're generally unenforcable) But I'd like to see some work done on forcing the issue with amendments to the UCC along those lines, rather than waiting for the courts to hash it all out.
No... the S.Ct. refused to hear the case. That doesn't mean that they agree, it just means that they had more important things. Don't read too much into a denial of cert.
Q: Why is that?
A: Top posters.
Q: What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Don't forget that if a conversation involves more than two parties, the video displays should divide themselves up. As in all else in life, Voltron provides the best example of this.
Sometimes they do. But it is rare. I had a Sony Trin that had a dead pixel on it -- but it only occurred after some years. I suspect that there was some kind of contaminant inside the tube that eventually did it. LCD dead pixels are much, much more common.
Yes. The GPL _is_ valid.
I never said it wasn't. In fact, what I originally was pointing out was
that a) there is no general right of parties other than the copyright
holder or people authorized by the copyright holder to make backup copies
of copyrighted works due to 17 USC 106, b) that if backups are made, it
has to be fair use, which always depends on the circumstances as tested
per 17 USC 107 (maybe one backup is okay, maybe not; maybe one million
backups are okay, maybe not), but that in addition c) there is a limited
right for such people to make backup copies regardless of whether it's a
fair use or not of computer software given the appropriate circumstances,
per 17 USC 117.
Did I ever say that the GPL was _not_ a valid authorization made by the
copyright holder to anyone who accepts the terms? No I did not. Because I
think that the GPL is valid.
HOWEVER, that doesn't change the fact that 17 USC 106A is simply
irrelevant to this discussion, as it only applies to authorizations by
certain creators (not copyright holders) for certain types of creative
works. Computer software, including Linux, is NOT one of the types of
works that 106A is applicable to.
Is 17 USC 106 relevant? Sure. It establishes what rights are exclusive to
the copyright holder; it doesn't stop him from authorizing other people to
exercise the rights that he enjoys.
See, what you might have missed is that I think that the argument put
forth by SCO which we are discussing in this thread is total bullshit. BUT
I nevertheless will not hesitate to correct other people who are critical
of it if those other people make unfounded or stupid claims. (e.g. that it
is always legal to make one backup copy of anything you own a copy of,
which is simply untrue)
I read this stuff on the can for God's sake. I live for copyright law. (though trademarks have their charms)
Anyway, 106A isn't relevant except in very rare cases, basically because it only applies to "works of visual art" which are defined narrowly in 101.
106a applies to any visual art except movies
Man, were you born this dumb or did you get dropped on your head as a kid? The law sayeth, in 17 USC 101:
A work of visual art does not include -
(A)
(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;
(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;
(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);
(B) any work made for hire; or
(C) any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.
Boy, how you could read all of that and wind up thinking that it only says movies is a pretty impressive feat.
And since computer software is a LITERARY WORK 106A may as well not even exist for purposes of the SCO issue which, correct me if I'm wrong, is what this whole hoo-hah is about.
And as for 106, so fucking what? I know 106. And I know that 117 -- which I had been quoting -- is an exception to 106. Just like you quoted, Subject to sections 107 through 122.... So I guess 117 is applicable after all.
106a has been used to show intent about transfer of ownership
Great! Show me some citations. Because normally when there's a statute being used for assignments, it's section 204 or 205. But you know what -- the GPL is not an assignment of rights. Rather, it is an authorization founded in the copyright holder's rights. For example, when my parents tell my sister that she can borrow the car, they don't sell her the car and give her the title to it. They authorize her to use it while they continue to own it.
Likewise, when a programmer GPLs his software, he keeps his copyright, but authorizes people in compliance with the GPL to exercise rights that are his exclusively to dole out or keep as he wishes.
Are these words too big for you, kid?
Are you just stupid or something?
The section you're quoting from -- and I had to search to find it because
you didn't provide the actual citation -- is 17 USC 106A.
Which is TOTALLY NOT APPLICABLE.
106A ONLY applies to paintings, drawings, prints, photographs, sculptures
where there is only one copy, or where there is a limited edition of no
more than 200 copies which are signed and consequtively numbered by the
artist, where the artist is still alive.
Are you seriously proposing that computer software such as Linux is in
fact a painting of which there are no more than 200 copies, and where ALL
the programmers have signed and numbered it?
No, I think the more likely explanation is that you are what we call in
Latin, a 'Dorkus Malorkus' and that you have no idea of what the fuck
you're talking about.
Now please die.
Any number of backups of anything would have to be fair use. One backup might not be okay in a given set of circumstances. A million might be just peachy keen in a different set.
But do note specific statutory exemptions relating to backups: 17 USC 117 and 1008, neither of which limits a person to a single backup (any number is okay) but they do set certain prerequisites that must be met prior to being able to use them.
No, you're wrong.
US copyright law doesn't prevent the copyright holder or those persons
authorized by the copyright holder from doing any damn thing with the
works the copyright holder holds the copyrights on.
However, for the rest of us, the law does not guarantee us the right to
make any backup copies. One, or two, or a million backup copies MAY be a
fair use, but then again they may not be a fair use. You CANNOT make a
blanket statement as to what is and is not a fair use. All uses claimed to
be fair must be considered on the specific facts involved. The factors
that will be looked at for ALL fair use cases (there are no automatic fair
uses even in the law) are in 17 USC 109.
However, Congress can always specifically permit backup copies (or
anything else) to be made regardless of whether or not it is fair. And
they did so, at least partially.
If you are the owner of a copy of a computer program -- and note that this
is entirely seperate from being the owner of the copyright (who could make
copies regardless of what Congress has to say; clearly this doesn't refer
to him) -- then you can make as many backup copies as you like (the law
never says just one, and uses plurals implying that Congress expected
there'd be more than one) provided that you don't keep those copies when
you no longer have the original. There is a problem in that licensees
aren't owners. But the GPL isn't a EULA -- it doesn't claim that the
person who gets a copy of GPLed software is a licensee of the actual
owner, instead apparently allowing the posessor of the copy to own that
copy outright, as with a book, or a DVD, or a CD, none of which have
licenses either normally. The specific law in question is 17 USC 117.
No, it's a Memotech MTX512. And it's not an Intel 8080 CPU, it's the Zilog Z80.
;)
Apparently the movie's prop people decided to use this rather obscure European computer because it _really_ looked like a computer.
Personally I'm planning to go to Hawaii in a few years to use a battery-powered Apple IIc with the IIc LCD screen on the beach.
No sweat. As I said, it's a common mistake due to the two meanings pretty much perfectly getting swapped.
Copyrights are not set up to promote the useful arts. You're reading the
... To promote the progress of science and
Constitution wrongly, but this is not surprising because there was an
interesting shift in language between now and the late 18th century when
the Constitution was written (not far from where I am right now, here in
Philadelphia).
The clause reads (I'm doing this from memory so forgive minor errors):
"The Congress shall have power
useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and inventions"
The clause establishes Congress' power to grant copyrights and patents.
Look at the structure of the clause:
science and useful arts
authors and inventors
writings and inventions
Each of the first terms refers to copyrights. Each of the second terms
refers to patents. And that makes sense -- why would the framers muddle
the meaning of the clause by flip-flopping the order of the terms relating
to copyrights and patents?
See, in the 18th century, 'science' did not mean, the natural sciences
such as physics, but rather it meant all knowledge generally. And
furthermore, the 'arts' did not mean the fine arts, e.g. painting, but
rather technical skills. The two terms didn't acquire the meanings we're
familiar with until the 19th and 20th centuries. (consult the OED for more
information)
So, for example, this is why the Patent Office was originally known as the
Board of Arts, and why patents on inventions are known as Utility Patents
-- because they're only granted for inventions that are somehow useful!
Knowledge generally, as is promoted by copyrights, does not need to be
useful. In fact it's difficult to imagine how a painting or a movie or a
song or a fictional story are useful. They may be appealing, but they have
no practical function. In fact, copyrights cannot protect some sorts of
works insofar as they have a practical function! (see the Utilty Doctrine)
Well, to be a little more accurate, any sort of infringement can be
permitted by fair use. It's probably fair use to videotape something off
of tv for my parents, and to give them the tape that I made. Fair use
_may_ apply to any situation. And it _may_ not. You always have to run
through the fair use analysis.
The traditional method is to find a vacant house (but not too blatantly vacant) and where the package can be delivered and left. When you expect something to arrive, keep an eye on the place so that you can get the package on the doorstep before someone else.
Alternatively, you might use someone else's address, if you felt you could intercept the package before they picked it up.
Yeah, however this creates a blocking problem. The original patent holder can use his patent except for the new non-obvious purpose patented, and the new patent holder can't use his at all, as it would infringe upon the earlier patent.
Generally it is hoped that they will come to some kind of agreement, as they have nowhere else to turn.
Property rights aren't an inherent human right, outside of perhaps things that you can carry with you at all times. Everything else basically involves common agreement. But people do agree, because they recognize that it's generally in their best interests to do so, at least to a certain extent.
This is true as well with regards to copyrights -- I'll thank you not to continue using the term 'intellectual property' if you're going to use it wrongly (it's a bad term anyway) -- but this is an easier example because copyrights only sprung up so recently.
Now, I do believe in inherent human rights, and I encourage people who don't believe in them to at least pretend that they do since it is safer. But that doesn't mean that every stupid little thing, such as property rights, are inherent.
Doesn't mean it isn't useful either. I think that property rights and copyrights -- if done properly -- are extraordinarily useful and oughtn't to be mucked about with. But their utility doesn't make them inherent either.
Let's look at Jefferson. I would imagine that he probably had some idea about the concept that there were inherent human rights which should be recognized and safeguarded. Although you should be a little worried, because he's the same guy that cribbed Locke when writing about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Jefferson wrote a letter about patents which I feel is quite relevant here. This is going to be a rather long quote, but I enjoyed the language so much that I really did not want to sully it with various ellipses.
Who knows. But he's right in that the program needs to be able to do that. Just because his habits working with the program are not the same as the developers' doesn't mean they're not valid. User testing is great for helping to discover issues the developers have been blind to -- sadly, it's one of the things that the Unix community is worst at. And fixing it yourself isn't often a viable option, even if it's possible.