but the truth is that everyone that is creating stuff today-artists, writers, musicians (and that includes writers of software too) is hurting badly because of the rampant pirating of our work
Let's say that you are absolutely correct about that. But so what?
Authors do not have a god-given right to copyrights. They're artificial monopolies which are used to subsidize artists (in a slightly peculiar way, in that the value of the subsidy hinges on the popularity of the work) in order to achieve a net public benefit that is greater than if we didn't have copyrights. It is entirely reasonable and very responsible for the public to reduce or even eliminate copyright protection if it serves the public interest to do so. If that harms authors, it doesn't matter, save for the effect on the public interest, which is all that matters. The same logic applies to creating or increasing copyright: it isn't done to benefit authors, but to benefit the public.
Social norms play a role in this. There is a norm to the effect that commercial piracy is harmful to the public interest. But there is also a norm, which we have been seeing more and more lately, that non-commercial piracy engaged in by natural persons is perfectly acceptable. Along with this, we have also been seeing growing interest in copyright law, and growing dissatisfaction in it by large masses of people who feel it has grown too large.
So what I think is likely to happen is that copyrights will shrink, and while they might protect authors against commercial pirates, there will be no meaningful restrictions on ordinary people. This may quite possibly result in that 'hurting badly' becoming the normal state of affairs, if it isn't already. So long as the public is better served by having more freedom to do as they like even taking into account that there might be fewer works created and published, this is not only an acceptable outcome, it is actually a desirable one!
I wish the law is even stricter and anyone caught pirating anything be made to pay dearly. This includes taking any of the property they own(house, car, etc) and if they cannot pay send their ass to jail. Enough IS enough.
Naturally you wish for that, since you are self-interested. And it's good that you are, since copyright is all about exploiting your sense of self interest. But the public is equally self-interested, and from how people are behaving, it seems likely that they wish the law was looser, such that your average individual who pirates doesn't even get a slap on the wrist or even social opprobrium. Seeing as how the audience outnumbers the authors, I think the audience is going to win on that one.
Copyrights are too easily granted, last too long, bar too much behavior, apply to too many types of works, over-reward authors, and carry too-harsh penalties for infringement. Enough is enough.
I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support, or directly provide, loans at the Federal level for college students.
Well, it's pretty simple, really. Art. I, 8, cl. 1 contains the spending power. Essentially, provided that it does so for public purposes, Congress can spend federal money however it likes. Making higher education more accessible to the general public is a public purpose. A student loan program is one means of doing so; Congress could just as easily have created a national public university instead, or just given the money away instead of lending it, but loans are the option they chose.
Copyright reform through the specific defining of "fair use" would correct that.
But it would be a very bad idea. We're better with fair use being decided on a per-use basis, depending on the facts at hand, since it allows use to find novel fair uses. If there had been a statutory definition of fair use in the 1970's, then it would have been before anyone even imagined time shifting as a fair use, and the VCR would've been illegal. New forms of fair use come along all the time: only a vague law can reasonably deal with that.
If there are some specific things that you think should be lawful, I would suggest not irreparably damaging fair use, but instead creating a statutory exception. We've already got loads of them on the books. For example, reselling used copies of works isn't a fair use, but is nevertheless lawful for an entirely different reason. True, any kind of use can potentially be a fair use (though no kind of use is guaranteed to be fair), but we needn't shoehorn everything under the sun into fair use.
Actually that case, Feist, v. Rural, hinged on something else. The fake numbers were just tell-tales to determine if someone had copied the phone numbers from that source, as opposed to getting them independently. While that's useful to prove copying, it isn't useful for anything else, and is not really important otherwise.
Harry Potter is now a quite powerful and "valuable" brand. When you like her books, you know that when you pick up a Harry Potter book, you will get some good entertainment. I haven't read any, but there's got to be something good in them or there wouldn't be people besieging stores where they're sold just to get them the very first day.
If copyright didn't exist, nothing would keep some "organisation" from doing a market survey, see what new artists create something the audience likes and flood the market with crappy knockoffs, written by people who neither care about the underlying "world" nor about telling a good story, all they want to do is latch onto the idea and milk it.
Two problems.
First, what you're describing really is more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue. Copyrights are not meant to, and do not, protect brand identity. Trademarks do that.
Second, copyright does not protect ideas. So it is perfectly possible for anyone to do market research and create crappy knockoffs that rely on the same underlying idea (a boring child turns out to have secret powers, a vital destiny in the midst of a secret war, etc.).
FYI, patents deal with the useful arts. Copyrights deal with science. Remember, the clause was written in the late 18th century, and there have been changes in the language since then. By useful arts, what is meant is applied technology; by science, general knowledge. It's reflected in the structure of the clause as well, which always invokes copyright first, patents second: science, useful arts -- authors, inventors -- writings, discoveries. And there are still some remnants left of the old uses of the words, e.g. how patents are concerned with prior art, state of the art technology, and persons having ordinary skill in the art.
Also, while British copyright law was pioneering in its day, and was indeed concerned with the public good, AFAIK this has not been the case for a long time.
From what I understand, the Lexicon contains factual information about the characters and situations contained in the Harry Potter series - material which Rowling has already published. Factual information is not subject to copyright.
Facts are not copyrightable in the US, true, but these are not facts. Remember, everything about the characters and situations is fictional. In order for something to be a fact, it will have to do with the real world. Thus, Harry Potter's favorite color is no more of a fact than he is himself: it's just yet another fictional attribute of the fictional character. How many copies of the HP books have been sold is a fact, OTOH.
Similarly, cliffsnotes is protected from original authors when printing a plot summary.
I don't know. After Twin Peaks v. Publications International, I wouldn't want to be them, at least not with regard to their summaries of copyrighted works (mostly they stick to public domain materials).
However, I do know that Billboard had a very hard time preventing people from publishing their chart histories for this same reason, and a significant percentage of their business depends on selling those chart histories.
Well, see, that's a compilation of facts. Billboard isn't making up how well various records do out of thin air; they discover it, independently existing out there, and merely report on it. Quite different from this case.
See my reply above, it has nothing to do with how others get to know about your register. It was about hor copyright would work internationally when each country starts to require their own system for registring and honouring copyright. You would basically lose any protection in every other country were you do not find out what is needed by you, register and so on. The international system of honouring each other's copyright would not work so well, hence my question.
Yes, that's the idea. If an author cannot be bothered to take some modest effort to find out how to obtain protection in the US (or other countries that might adopt similar approaches), then why should the people of that country have to bother giving that author a copyright?
Copyrights should be reserved for those people who need them, as they impose a cost to the public which should not be made greater than necessary. The best mechanism we have for determining who they are is for them to identify themselves as wanting a copyright. People who need them will surely seek them out, and people who don't need them will probably not bother. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got at present.
While each country should engage in outreach (since there's no reason to treat nationals and foreigners differently), I expect that the best system would have the Copyright Office of one's own country provide information as to what other countries require for registration there.
Thus, if Boris, a citizen of Pottsylvania, writes a book and wants to copyright it in the US, he could: 1) go to the US Copyright Office website for information; 2) call or write them, or; 3) contact the Pottsylvanian Copyright Office for assistance (so that they can give him a copy of the US instructions, forms, etc.).
I'm all for cooperation amongst the copyright systems of the world. I'm just against the idea that there should only be one copyright system at all. The copyright-related needs of one country will likely differ from any other country, and it is foolish to try to make them all the same. In practice, we've seen that it results in a race to the bottom, with everyone pressured to adopt the worst standards of the lot, which are then made worse still, causing the cycle to repeat itself.
Even if one DO adopt the system and one DO make the paper works, what is acceptable contact addresses? I assume you allow world wide addresses
International correspondence is fine with me; remember, I'm for unilateral national treatment, and it would be pretty mean to insist upon addresses for correspondence that were preferential to Americans. Of course, if some correspondence back and forth is necessary, it will be important for the address to actually work.
What type of contact service is needed? Does it have to be personal or can one set up a company that handle all such contacts internationally?
Using a third party to help in the registration process would not be mandatory, but anyone would be free to use it as an option. If so, they'd be treated no differently from any other applicant, except that they'd have to indicate on the form that the third party is assisting the applicant, acting as a go-between, and not making a claim for itself, etc. No one has to show up in Washington personally.
I do agree on the fact that such a system breaking up compyright to be a completely regional thing will make the protection MUCH weaker, even in the country were you want protection since people can just go abroad to get arround it. Sure, one can put up an iron curtain between each country dissallowing any transfer of goods or even persons over the boarder to avoid it but I doubt that is a price that is worth paying.
No, part of copyright includes importation controls. This has long been true, and such controls exist today. Remember, that even where a work is copyrighted in two different countries, different parties could own the different copyrights. So while it might be legal for Alice in America, and Bob i
Whoa there, no they're not. Physical property rights are based on the very non-artificial principle of "might makes right". As you proceed to note:
As I said, that's limited to your personal ability to defend it. So long as you can keep an eye on your car, and remain in rifle range of would-be thieves, it's yours. Otherwise you're relying on other people to agree that the car should be yours, which is the social compact part of it. If they disagree (e.g. the repo man comes along) then you've got problems. This is especially so, since the same social compact discourages people using force in some situations (e.g. against the repo man).
"Property rights" are just the government exercising might on your behalf so you don't need to yourself.
And since the government draws its power and legitimacy from the consent of the governed, that's the social compact. It's not set in stone. For example, until the early 18th century, no one thought there was copyrights. Then a small group of people decided that there was, and voila: there was.
It would be quite unfair and economically harmful to allow someone else to sue you merely because you were (unknowingly) the second person to run around doing massive work collecting the names and phone numbers of everyone in town, or collecting any other particular set of facts.
Well, that wasn't what Feist was about.
The sweat of the brow theory said that if A compiles unprotectable facts that his labor is worthy of protection, and B ought not be permitted to copy the compilation directly. Proponents of the theory instead wanted B to have to waste effort compiling the facts again and recreating the compilation itself, which it could then use freely. No one was suggesting that B would not be allowed to even do that. Of course, it's moot, as the Supreme Court found the theory unconstitutional: regardless of the effort involved, uncopyrightable material never becomes copyrightable.
IIRC, the database industry in the US is a lot healthier than in the EU.
How does that matter for this purpose? Especially given that if a copyright -- as distinct from the creative work to which it pertains, or specific copies embodying that work -- isn't a sort of property, it is awfully close. I'd like for it to not be property for takings clause purposes since I think that reform efforts might have trouble otherwise. But it's not an easy argument to make.
As for copyright not being like a house, well, a property right is not like a house either. But copyrights are very analogous to, say, a negative easement pertaining to a house, which lasts for a life interest plus a term of years. You could certainly assign that with no trouble at all. So why not a copyright?
I note that no one has argued against the charge of paternalism yet.
It would be far too difficult to apply any test of true creativity, so instead we have a situation where all work of certain types is covered by copyright, whether it is creative or not.
As it happens, the threshold is amazingly low. So long as the work is original (i.e. not copied from elsewhere, regardless of whether it happens to be identical to something else or not) and has a modicum of creativity, it is enough.
If we want to use copyright to reward work, than wouldn't it be logical to extend it so that it covers every different sort of work?
But we don't. We want copyright to act as an incentive to get authors to create works which they otherwise would not have created. At the same time, we don't want to award copyrights to authors for works which they would have created regardless (why pay for something you'll get for free, after all?). Finally, we want to get the most bang for our buck, and thus receive the greatest public benefit (i.e. the most works created) for the least public detriment (i.e. the least possible copyright, in length and breadth), which further precludes us from granting it willy-nilly.
The amount of work is really not a factor either way. If you create an original, creative work by dint of great effort, then it is exactly as copyrightable as one that you just dash off in but a moment.
Copyright doesn't deal with ideas other than to say that they are uncopyrightable.
Copyright itself is not natural. It's artificial, so what is wrong with any restrictions placed upon it.
What does that have to do with anything? Remember, all property rights are artificial; that you own your car or house is merely a matter of social compact and your personal ability to defend them from intruders. If everyone in the world decided that you didn't own it anymore (e.g. someone sued you and won them as damages) then you wouldn't, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Whether you own something has more to do with everyone else allowing you to than whether you want to.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that if you are going to give a copyright to an author, then isn't that author better-suited to manage his own financial affairs than you are? He knows more about his own condition than you; he knows how much he values his copyrights than you; he is more interested in his own welfare than you will ever be. So let him use and dispose of it as he wishes, and don't interfere. If he makes a good choice, or a bad choice, it is better for him to have made his own choices than for you to make them for him because you are paternalistic and lack faith in him. Authors are not children, and should not be treated as such.
Call it the "Copyright Term Harmonization Act", and trim back US law to the minimums required by the TRIPS agreement. That's a good first step.
No, a good first step is setting TRIPS (and Berne, and the UCC, and the rest) on fire, then dancing on the ashes. We will never have even the slightest meaningful reform of copyright, much less good copyright law, until the US withdraws from these terrible, terrible abominations of treaties. While I have no qualms with international cooperation normally, copyright is just not a good place for it. We should go it alone here, and I wouldn't have a problem with everyone else adopting the same attitude.
On the other hand, setting the bible in type is a substantial job of work, as is performing a piece of classical music, or translating a book from a foreign language. It could easily be argued that this work is just as deserving of copyright protection as the original creation. Just taking a photograph does not require so much effort.
Dead wrong.
Mere 'sweat of the brow' is never a valid argument for copyright, and the notion is dead and buried in the US. See Feist v. Rural for the Supreme Court throwing the idea in the garbage where it belongs.
If your work is not original, or is not creative, then it is not copyrightable, no matter how hard it was to do. It's deliberately so.
It's a bit off-topic, but "mere" transforms devoid of creativity should never get a fresh copyright.
In the US, they do not, regardless of medium. This is agreed upon by the Constitution, the Copyright Act, and the courts. See e.g. 17 USC 102(a) and 103(b) as well as L. Batlin v. Snyder.
On the other hand, if I took a passage from the King James Bible and wrote it by hand in my own calligraphy, I should be able to protect it as a work of art for the usual length of time. I have added a non-trivial creative element.
That depends on the nature of the calligraphy, and it still wouldn't protect the actual text, only the visual appearance. But it's also entirely possible that unless you have sufficiently creative calligraphy that nothing would be protected. Remember that mere letterforms are not protected due to the utility doctrine.
If you don't have a computer or a fax or a phone, you can always use the mail. The international postal system is pretty good.
If you want a US copyright, you deal with the US paperwork. If you want a Canadian copyright, you deal with the Canadian paperwork. If you want a UK copyright, you deal with the UK paperwork.
The paperwork should be very simple, however: name, address, name of the work, date. That's mainly it. In some cases there may be a bit more (e.g. if there are multiple authors, what it is based on if it's a derivative work) but still not much. Far easier than taxes, and about on par with a change of address form.
If you decide that the paperwork isn't worth doing, then the work isn't copyrighted there. The choice is up to you.
If you think it's too difficult to do all of this personally, then I'm sure there will be many businesses willing to assist you for a competitive fee.
Most likely, only some authors, for some works, will care about copyright. Those are probably the authors who were incentivized to create as a result of the offer of a copyright. They'll take the time to do the paperwork as necessary. Many other authors won't care about copyright, were not incentivized by copyright, and won't take even the token effort to seek one. This is ideal: while we want to use copyright to incentivize authors who would not have otherwise created works, we never want to use copyright to unfairly benefit authors who didn't need that additional incentive. Further, we do want works to not be copyrighted, or to at least be minimally copyrighted. Only copyrighting works on an as-needed basis (where we only grant them where specifically sought) helps in that regard.
Why so long? Why not, say, a 7 year term, with up to three renewals. That way, if a copyright holder stops caring about his work enough to renew, the work falls into the public domain that much earlier. Historically, it's common, with most authors failing to ever renew. Further, given the economic horizons of works (e.g. making 90% of their lifetime value within at most a year, and often less time), perhaps the terms ought to be even shorter than that.
Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work.
I absolutely disagree. If an author wants to sell his copyright, who are you to tell him he can't? Is he not allowed to sell his house or his car as well? Don't be so paternalistic. If people want to do this, let them. It is not appropriate to second-guess other people's personal and business decisions in that manner except in extreme cases, and these are not extreme cases.
Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.
Meh. The work made for hire doctrine is a bit shaky, I admit, but I think it would probably be better to enlarge it than to abolish it. E.g. if you hire a wedding photographer, why shouldn't you wind up with the copyright to the photos without having to specially negotiate it? (Better still, why should they even be copyrighted? I think the public will live, and it's just one more mark in favor of requiring registration)
Non-commercial violations would be allowed under fair use so long as their scope was limited. (ie, OK to share a copy with your friend for no money; not OK to share copies with hundreds of strangers for no money.)
I'd just as soon open the flood gates on this, so long as it is natural persons and non-commercial. I wouldn't extend that protection for actively participating commercial or non-natural entities, however. (e.g. a torrent tracker couldn't carry advertising or be run by a business in order to be protected) After all, it's basically happening anyway, and it seems to not be a big deal.
While I'm all for meaningful copyright reform as soon as possible, I was not impressed by Sohn's proposal. Responding to her points:
1. Fair use reform is dangerous; it is essential that a flexible approach be maintained, even though this may result in less certainty. Remember, fair use arose in the mid-19th century; could the jurists of the day have anticipated novel fair uses such as time shifting? Sohn acknowledged that position, but I don't think she paid it enough heed. The only fair use reform I would suggest, though I am ambivalent as to whether it would actually be a good idea, would be to allow facilitators of fair use to stand in the shoes of actual fair users, reversing the decision of Princeton v. Michigan Document Services.
I do agree with the proposal that copyright should be reduced so as to not interfere so much with certain uses, but these should be structured as statutory exceptions separate from fair use, rather than as a part of fair use itself. In particular, I have long advocated for a broad exception for any non-commercial conduct by natural persons. Exceptions for incidental use, and particularly the incidental copies that are inescapable when computers are involved, are also good ideas. Just not all shoehorned into fair use.
Sohn also proposes an exception to the anticircumvention statutes. That's just inadequate, however. Sections 1201 et seq all need to be repealed; it is impossible to fix them. Indeed, what we really need is the opposite provision: that if a work is published (using a broad definition of publication that encompasses public performance and display) by or under the authority of the copyright holder, the work enters the public domain immediately. Further, that one of the duties of the Copyright Office and Library of Congress will be to assist in the efforts of cracking the DRM on those works and of disseminating those works once unprotected. There would need to be a brief period of time for publishers to reissue or forfeit their already-published DRM'ed works, though that wouldn't apply to works that hadn't been published in some manner prior to the reform taking effect.
While we cannot ban DRM outright, as it is a free speech issue, nor would we want to in certain applications, e.g. private communications and information, unpublished manuscripts, etc., we can at least avoid providing the incentives and benefits of copyright to anyone who would use it for published works. Authors would be free to opt to use DRM, but would forgo legal protection. This strikes me as a fair balance.
2. I generally agree with Sohn on this point, though I don't see much point in abolishing statutory damages for secondary infringers if you're already reversing Grokster with a strict reading of Sony.
3. I generally agree with Sohn on this point as well, though really the 512 exception should be made broader, with more general language, lest a court read it too narrowly, as happened in Napster. Also, the remedies for abuse should be broad, ranging from mere money damages, to injunctive relief, and in extreme cases, copyright revocation.
4. I agree that music licensing needs to be reworked from the ground up, as it is hopelessly convoluted. However, I do not think that there should be a public performance right for sound recordings, as it seems not to have produced any incentivizing effect, and clearly harms the public interest otherwise.
Further, I absolutely abhor the idea of non-assignable copyrights of any type. If an author wants to assign some or all rights, then it should be up to him to do so, provided that no one is forcing him. The typical practice in the music industry to present contracts that are heavily weighted in the favor of the publisher does not rise to the level of compulsion. Authors are free to reject those deals, to try to negotiate for something better, and to self-publish if all else fails. Authors are not children, and do not need special paternalistic protection against making foolish deals. I'm willing to speak out against
or whatever it is that makes us keep allowing it to happen at all.
That would be the First Amendment. It protects commercial speech. (See e.g. Central Hudson v. Public Service)
As with door-to-door soliciting, telemarketing relies on your implied consent, but that consent is presumed by default in our society. You can expressly withdraw it on an individual basis (e.g. telling a specific marketer to not call you / go to your door again) or by posting adequate notice (e.g. a do-not-solicit sign on the lawn). The DNC list isn't ideal, IMO, but it basically tries to do that last. Better would be to alter the phone system so that numbers could be flagged as do-not-call directly by the account holder, and would appear as such when dialed, but before the call actually went through, so that the call attempt could be abandoned before it impacted the recipient.
Ultimately, telemarketing is an annoying but unavoidable side-effect of free speech, somewhat like Skokie Nazis.
Incorrect, at least in the US. Trademarks work more or less like copyright; they are automatic upon use of the mark to trade goods or services (service marks).
I'd say less. First, a trademark does not exist merely once used; it has to actually function as a mark. Using it doesn't make it a protectable source identifier. Second, trademarks arise at common law, while the common law of copyrights is a hair away from not existing at all, it's all so statutory.
However, mark registration is actually a simple process, if one that takes a bit of time, unless the mark has some serious flaws in it.
It is novel and nonobvious, all phones before used dials, this is my artistic design for which I hold the copyright too, any other phones with keypads instead of dials must be derived works.
Well, that you are the first person to put a keypad on a phone was not in the previous post. Certainly whoever did that first could seek a utility patent on it (and probably did).
But not a copyright. First, ideas and methods are not copyrightable, so you cannot stop other people from putting a keypad on a phone or having the keypad function for dialing. All you could argue involves using your particular appearance of keypad (e.g. buttons so close together, particular arrangement, color, etc.). Second, for pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, the utility doctrine applies. Basically nothing useful about the work is copyrightable, and if the useful and non-useful parts of the work are inseperable, then none of it is copyrightable. Courts basically have a million different standards for seperability; I suspect that they make a gut decision and then work out a test to achieve the result. In any event, the keypad performs a useful function and is, if anything, a sculptural work. There doesn't seem to be a way to seperate the purely decorative parts of the keypad from the useful ones, though YMMV. That would mean the utility doctrine makes it uncopyrightable.
Why do I need a patent if I'm already covered by copyright law which lasts for much longer.
Because copyrights and patents have entirely different subject matter. Patents protect inventions; copyrights protect works. These do not overlap, though a single object might embody both inventions and works (e.g. a floppy disk, which is a combination of several inventions -- the disk medium, the plastic of the case, the shutter design, possibly the data format it carries, the use of a protective shell around the medium -- as well as perhaps bearing some works -- a few short stories that are saved on the disk). Trademarks are another kind of protection, but which does not overlap with copyrights or patents.
If you want to protect something, or certain aspects of something, then you need to use the appropriate sort of protection. If you took telephone cases and painted them decoratively, then you could copyright those designs. If you invented the phone keypad, you'd need to get a patent. If you introduced both features at the same time, you'd better have gotten a copyright and a patent or else not care.
Generally, I'd suggest looking at 17 USC 102. 102(a) lists the kinds of things that can be copyrighted (the utility doctrine is in 101). 102(b) lists the kinds of things that are not copyrightable, but do tend to fall into patent territory. It's handy to keep in mind.
hmm... UK law may be different than US law, but I was speaking to a guy who said all those imitation fonts are possible because of the copying process I described. I've never herd anything saying that they are illegal in the states.
In the US, typefaces are not copyrightable at all. You can copy them all you like. Well, new typefaces could be subject to a design patent, but given that 500-year old typefaces are in common use today, and design patents only last for 14 years and many designers don't bother to get them, it's not the biggest stumbling block ever.
However, it has sometimes been argued that computer fonts are actually copyrightable software which outputs uncopyrightable letterforms. It is a fairly dubious position, but not one which gets decided a lot. So you're better off not merely copying some font files, but analyzing the letterforms, etc. and reconstructing it. Also the names of the typeface could be trademarked, so watch out for that.
if I put a keypad on my phone just like another company has a keypad on their phone am I suddenly breaking copyright law because our products have the sameish/copied features?
Poor example. That would run into the utility doctrine, if not 102(b), much like the typefaces do. OTOH, if it was novel and nonobvious, you could try to get a patent.
Well, that is mainly a jurisdictional question. If Amazon.fr is not actually located in the UK, which is what normally puts someone in British jxn, then there has to be some other connection that does it. Merely claiming worldwide jxn isn't really good enough, since you'd have to convince the French courts to go along with it, and they'll likely have a higher standard than unilateral declarations. Otherwise you'd be stuck pursuing whatever assets Amazon.fr might have in the UK, which could be a lot, or could be very little.
In the US, part of the analysis is whether there has been enough contact by the defendant with the jurisdiction in which the suit is brought. Merely putting up a web site is generally not sufficient. Doing business with people in that jurisdiction (and thus voluntarily availing yourself of their laws so that you can form contracts, pursue deadbeats, etc.) generally is.
If this guy had been in the US, and had been acting lawfully under US law, and didn't have any assets in Austria which could have caused him to cave, he would pretty certainly not have a problem keeping the site online.
Remember to think through the consequences of enforcing laws which are foreign to the person being made subject to them: it's undemocratic, a race to the bottom, and often quite easy to abuse. People have to abide by the laws of the places where they are, but not usually places where they are not.
Slashdot Mirror
but the truth is that everyone that is creating stuff today-artists, writers, musicians (and that includes writers of software too) is hurting badly because of the rampant pirating of our work
Let's say that you are absolutely correct about that. But so what?
Authors do not have a god-given right to copyrights. They're artificial monopolies which are used to subsidize artists (in a slightly peculiar way, in that the value of the subsidy hinges on the popularity of the work) in order to achieve a net public benefit that is greater than if we didn't have copyrights. It is entirely reasonable and very responsible for the public to reduce or even eliminate copyright protection if it serves the public interest to do so. If that harms authors, it doesn't matter, save for the effect on the public interest, which is all that matters. The same logic applies to creating or increasing copyright: it isn't done to benefit authors, but to benefit the public.
Social norms play a role in this. There is a norm to the effect that commercial piracy is harmful to the public interest. But there is also a norm, which we have been seeing more and more lately, that non-commercial piracy engaged in by natural persons is perfectly acceptable. Along with this, we have also been seeing growing interest in copyright law, and growing dissatisfaction in it by large masses of people who feel it has grown too large.
So what I think is likely to happen is that copyrights will shrink, and while they might protect authors against commercial pirates, there will be no meaningful restrictions on ordinary people. This may quite possibly result in that 'hurting badly' becoming the normal state of affairs, if it isn't already. So long as the public is better served by having more freedom to do as they like even taking into account that there might be fewer works created and published, this is not only an acceptable outcome, it is actually a desirable one!
I wish the law is even stricter and anyone caught pirating anything be made to pay dearly. This includes taking any of the property they own(house, car, etc) and if they cannot pay send their ass to jail. Enough IS enough.
Naturally you wish for that, since you are self-interested. And it's good that you are, since copyright is all about exploiting your sense of self interest. But the public is equally self-interested, and from how people are behaving, it seems likely that they wish the law was looser, such that your average individual who pirates doesn't even get a slap on the wrist or even social opprobrium. Seeing as how the audience outnumbers the authors, I think the audience is going to win on that one.
Copyrights are too easily granted, last too long, bar too much behavior, apply to too many types of works, over-reward authors, and carry too-harsh penalties for infringement. Enough is enough.
I still am trying to figure out how the Supreme Court allows Congress to support, or directly provide, loans at the Federal level for college students.
Well, it's pretty simple, really. Art. I, 8, cl. 1 contains the spending power. Essentially, provided that it does so for public purposes, Congress can spend federal money however it likes. Making higher education more accessible to the general public is a public purpose. A student loan program is one means of doing so; Congress could just as easily have created a national public university instead, or just given the money away instead of lending it, but loans are the option they chose.
Copyright reform through the specific defining of "fair use" would correct that.
But it would be a very bad idea. We're better with fair use being decided on a per-use basis, depending on the facts at hand, since it allows use to find novel fair uses. If there had been a statutory definition of fair use in the 1970's, then it would have been before anyone even imagined time shifting as a fair use, and the VCR would've been illegal. New forms of fair use come along all the time: only a vague law can reasonably deal with that.
If there are some specific things that you think should be lawful, I would suggest not irreparably damaging fair use, but instead creating a statutory exception. We've already got loads of them on the books. For example, reselling used copies of works isn't a fair use, but is nevertheless lawful for an entirely different reason. True, any kind of use can potentially be a fair use (though no kind of use is guaranteed to be fair), but we needn't shoehorn everything under the sun into fair use.
Actually that case, Feist, v. Rural, hinged on something else. The fake numbers were just tell-tales to determine if someone had copied the phone numbers from that source, as opposed to getting them independently. While that's useful to prove copying, it isn't useful for anything else, and is not really important otherwise.
Harry Potter is now a quite powerful and "valuable" brand. When you like her books, you know that when you pick up a Harry Potter book, you will get some good entertainment. I haven't read any, but there's got to be something good in them or there wouldn't be people besieging stores where they're sold just to get them the very first day.
If copyright didn't exist, nothing would keep some "organisation" from doing a market survey, see what new artists create something the audience likes and flood the market with crappy knockoffs, written by people who neither care about the underlying "world" nor about telling a good story, all they want to do is latch onto the idea and milk it.
Two problems.
First, what you're describing really is more of a trademark issue than a copyright issue. Copyrights are not meant to, and do not, protect brand identity. Trademarks do that.
Second, copyright does not protect ideas. So it is perfectly possible for anyone to do market research and create crappy knockoffs that rely on the same underlying idea (a boring child turns out to have secret powers, a vital destiny in the midst of a secret war, etc.).
FYI, patents deal with the useful arts. Copyrights deal with science. Remember, the clause was written in the late 18th century, and there have been changes in the language since then. By useful arts, what is meant is applied technology; by science, general knowledge. It's reflected in the structure of the clause as well, which always invokes copyright first, patents second: science, useful arts -- authors, inventors -- writings, discoveries. And there are still some remnants left of the old uses of the words, e.g. how patents are concerned with prior art, state of the art technology, and persons having ordinary skill in the art.
Also, while British copyright law was pioneering in its day, and was indeed concerned with the public good, AFAIK this has not been the case for a long time.
From what I understand, the Lexicon contains factual information about the characters and situations contained in the Harry Potter series - material which Rowling has already published. Factual information is not subject to copyright.
Facts are not copyrightable in the US, true, but these are not facts. Remember, everything about the characters and situations is fictional. In order for something to be a fact, it will have to do with the real world. Thus, Harry Potter's favorite color is no more of a fact than he is himself: it's just yet another fictional attribute of the fictional character. How many copies of the HP books have been sold is a fact, OTOH.
Similarly, cliffsnotes is protected from original authors when printing a plot summary.
I don't know. After Twin Peaks v. Publications International, I wouldn't want to be them, at least not with regard to their summaries of copyrighted works (mostly they stick to public domain materials).
However, I do know that Billboard had a very hard time preventing people from publishing their chart histories for this same reason, and a significant percentage of their business depends on selling those chart histories.
Well, see, that's a compilation of facts. Billboard isn't making up how well various records do out of thin air; they discover it, independently existing out there, and merely report on it. Quite different from this case.
See my reply above, it has nothing to do with how others get to know about your register. It was about hor copyright would work internationally when each country starts to require their own system for registring and honouring copyright. You would basically lose any protection in every other country were you do not find out what is needed by you, register and so on. The international system of honouring each other's copyright would not work so well, hence my question.
Yes, that's the idea. If an author cannot be bothered to take some modest effort to find out how to obtain protection in the US (or other countries that might adopt similar approaches), then why should the people of that country have to bother giving that author a copyright?
Copyrights should be reserved for those people who need them, as they impose a cost to the public which should not be made greater than necessary. The best mechanism we have for determining who they are is for them to identify themselves as wanting a copyright. People who need them will surely seek them out, and people who don't need them will probably not bother. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got at present.
While each country should engage in outreach (since there's no reason to treat nationals and foreigners differently), I expect that the best system would have the Copyright Office of one's own country provide information as to what other countries require for registration there.
Thus, if Boris, a citizen of Pottsylvania, writes a book and wants to copyright it in the US, he could: 1) go to the US Copyright Office website for information; 2) call or write them, or; 3) contact the Pottsylvanian Copyright Office for assistance (so that they can give him a copy of the US instructions, forms, etc.).
I'm all for cooperation amongst the copyright systems of the world. I'm just against the idea that there should only be one copyright system at all. The copyright-related needs of one country will likely differ from any other country, and it is foolish to try to make them all the same. In practice, we've seen that it results in a race to the bottom, with everyone pressured to adopt the worst standards of the lot, which are then made worse still, causing the cycle to repeat itself.
Even if one DO adopt the system and one DO make the paper works, what is acceptable contact addresses? I assume you allow world wide addresses
International correspondence is fine with me; remember, I'm for unilateral national treatment, and it would be pretty mean to insist upon addresses for correspondence that were preferential to Americans. Of course, if some correspondence back and forth is necessary, it will be important for the address to actually work.
What type of contact service is needed? Does it have to be personal or can one set up a company that handle all such contacts internationally?
Using a third party to help in the registration process would not be mandatory, but anyone would be free to use it as an option. If so, they'd be treated no differently from any other applicant, except that they'd have to indicate on the form that the third party is assisting the applicant, acting as a go-between, and not making a claim for itself, etc. No one has to show up in Washington personally.
I do agree on the fact that such a system breaking up compyright to be a completely regional thing will make the protection MUCH weaker, even in the country were you want protection since people can just go abroad to get arround it. Sure, one can put up an iron curtain between each country dissallowing any transfer of goods or even persons over the boarder to avoid it but I doubt that is a price that is worth paying.
No, part of copyright includes importation controls. This has long been true, and such controls exist today. Remember, that even where a work is copyrighted in two different countries, different parties could own the different copyrights. So while it might be legal for Alice in America, and Bob i
Whoa there, no they're not. Physical property rights are based on the very non-artificial principle of "might makes right". As you proceed to note:
As I said, that's limited to your personal ability to defend it. So long as you can keep an eye on your car, and remain in rifle range of would-be thieves, it's yours. Otherwise you're relying on other people to agree that the car should be yours, which is the social compact part of it. If they disagree (e.g. the repo man comes along) then you've got problems. This is especially so, since the same social compact discourages people using force in some situations (e.g. against the repo man).
"Property rights" are just the government exercising might on your behalf so you don't need to yourself.
And since the government draws its power and legitimacy from the consent of the governed, that's the social compact. It's not set in stone. For example, until the early 18th century, no one thought there was copyrights. Then a small group of people decided that there was, and voila: there was.
It would be quite unfair and economically harmful to allow someone else to sue you merely because you were (unknowingly) the second person to run around doing massive work collecting the names and phone numbers of everyone in town, or collecting any other particular set of facts.
Well, that wasn't what Feist was about.
The sweat of the brow theory said that if A compiles unprotectable facts that his labor is worthy of protection, and B ought not be permitted to copy the compilation directly. Proponents of the theory instead wanted B to have to waste effort compiling the facts again and recreating the compilation itself, which it could then use freely. No one was suggesting that B would not be allowed to even do that. Of course, it's moot, as the Supreme Court found the theory unconstitutional: regardless of the effort involved, uncopyrightable material never becomes copyrightable.
IIRC, the database industry in the US is a lot healthier than in the EU.
How does that matter for this purpose? Especially given that if a copyright -- as distinct from the creative work to which it pertains, or specific copies embodying that work -- isn't a sort of property, it is awfully close. I'd like for it to not be property for takings clause purposes since I think that reform efforts might have trouble otherwise. But it's not an easy argument to make.
As for copyright not being like a house, well, a property right is not like a house either. But copyrights are very analogous to, say, a negative easement pertaining to a house, which lasts for a life interest plus a term of years. You could certainly assign that with no trouble at all. So why not a copyright?
I note that no one has argued against the charge of paternalism yet.
It would be far too difficult to apply any test of true creativity, so instead we have a situation where all work of certain types is covered by copyright, whether it is creative or not.
As it happens, the threshold is amazingly low. So long as the work is original (i.e. not copied from elsewhere, regardless of whether it happens to be identical to something else or not) and has a modicum of creativity, it is enough.
If we want to use copyright to reward work, than wouldn't it be logical to extend it so that it covers every different sort of work?
But we don't. We want copyright to act as an incentive to get authors to create works which they otherwise would not have created. At the same time, we don't want to award copyrights to authors for works which they would have created regardless (why pay for something you'll get for free, after all?). Finally, we want to get the most bang for our buck, and thus receive the greatest public benefit (i.e. the most works created) for the least public detriment (i.e. the least possible copyright, in length and breadth), which further precludes us from granting it willy-nilly.
The amount of work is really not a factor either way. If you create an original, creative work by dint of great effort, then it is exactly as copyrightable as one that you just dash off in but a moment.
Why should someone be allowed to sell an idea?
Copyright doesn't deal with ideas other than to say that they are uncopyrightable.
Copyright itself is not natural. It's artificial, so what is wrong with any restrictions placed upon it.
What does that have to do with anything? Remember, all property rights are artificial; that you own your car or house is merely a matter of social compact and your personal ability to defend them from intruders. If everyone in the world decided that you didn't own it anymore (e.g. someone sued you and won them as damages) then you wouldn't, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Whether you own something has more to do with everyone else allowing you to than whether you want to.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that if you are going to give a copyright to an author, then isn't that author better-suited to manage his own financial affairs than you are? He knows more about his own condition than you; he knows how much he values his copyrights than you; he is more interested in his own welfare than you will ever be. So let him use and dispose of it as he wishes, and don't interfere. If he makes a good choice, or a bad choice, it is better for him to have made his own choices than for you to make them for him because you are paternalistic and lack faith in him. Authors are not children, and should not be treated as such.
Call it the "Copyright Term Harmonization Act", and trim back US law to the minimums required by the TRIPS agreement. That's a good first step.
No, a good first step is setting TRIPS (and Berne, and the UCC, and the rest) on fire, then dancing on the ashes. We will never have even the slightest meaningful reform of copyright, much less good copyright law, until the US withdraws from these terrible, terrible abominations of treaties. While I have no qualms with international cooperation normally, copyright is just not a good place for it. We should go it alone here, and I wouldn't have a problem with everyone else adopting the same attitude.
On the other hand, setting the bible in type is a substantial job of work, as is performing a piece of classical music, or translating a book from a foreign language. It could easily be argued that this work is just as deserving of copyright protection as the original creation. Just taking a photograph does not require so much effort.
Dead wrong.
Mere 'sweat of the brow' is never a valid argument for copyright, and the notion is dead and buried in the US. See Feist v. Rural for the Supreme Court throwing the idea in the garbage where it belongs.
If your work is not original, or is not creative, then it is not copyrightable, no matter how hard it was to do. It's deliberately so.
It's a bit off-topic, but "mere" transforms devoid of creativity should never get a fresh copyright.
In the US, they do not, regardless of medium. This is agreed upon by the Constitution, the Copyright Act, and the courts. See e.g. 17 USC 102(a) and 103(b) as well as L. Batlin v. Snyder.
On the other hand, if I took a passage from the King James Bible and wrote it by hand in my own calligraphy, I should be able to protect it as a work of art for the usual length of time. I have added a non-trivial creative element.
That depends on the nature of the calligraphy, and it still wouldn't protect the actual text, only the visual appearance. But it's also entirely possible that unless you have sufficiently creative calligraphy that nothing would be protected. Remember that mere letterforms are not protected due to the utility doctrine.
If you don't have a computer or a fax or a phone, you can always use the mail. The international postal system is pretty good.
If you want a US copyright, you deal with the US paperwork. If you want a Canadian copyright, you deal with the Canadian paperwork. If you want a UK copyright, you deal with the UK paperwork.
The paperwork should be very simple, however: name, address, name of the work, date. That's mainly it. In some cases there may be a bit more (e.g. if there are multiple authors, what it is based on if it's a derivative work) but still not much. Far easier than taxes, and about on par with a change of address form.
If you decide that the paperwork isn't worth doing, then the work isn't copyrighted there. The choice is up to you.
If you think it's too difficult to do all of this personally, then I'm sure there will be many businesses willing to assist you for a competitive fee.
Most likely, only some authors, for some works, will care about copyright. Those are probably the authors who were incentivized to create as a result of the offer of a copyright. They'll take the time to do the paperwork as necessary. Many other authors won't care about copyright, were not incentivized by copyright, and won't take even the token effort to seek one. This is ideal: while we want to use copyright to incentivize authors who would not have otherwise created works, we never want to use copyright to unfairly benefit authors who didn't need that additional incentive. Further, we do want works to not be copyrighted, or to at least be minimally copyrighted. Only copyrighting works on an as-needed basis (where we only grant them where specifically sought) helps in that regard.
28 year term -- non-extendable
Why so long? Why not, say, a 7 year term, with up to three renewals. That way, if a copyright holder stops caring about his work enough to renew, the work falls into the public domain that much earlier. Historically, it's common, with most authors failing to ever renew. Further, given the economic horizons of works (e.g. making 90% of their lifetime value within at most a year, and often less time), perhaps the terms ought to be even shorter than that.
Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work.
I absolutely disagree. If an author wants to sell his copyright, who are you to tell him he can't? Is he not allowed to sell his house or his car as well? Don't be so paternalistic. If people want to do this, let them. It is not appropriate to second-guess other people's personal and business decisions in that manner except in extreme cases, and these are not extreme cases.
Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.
Meh. The work made for hire doctrine is a bit shaky, I admit, but I think it would probably be better to enlarge it than to abolish it. E.g. if you hire a wedding photographer, why shouldn't you wind up with the copyright to the photos without having to specially negotiate it? (Better still, why should they even be copyrighted? I think the public will live, and it's just one more mark in favor of requiring registration)
Non-commercial violations would be allowed under fair use so long as their scope was limited. (ie, OK to share a copy with your friend for no money; not OK to share copies with hundreds of strangers for no money.)
I'd just as soon open the flood gates on this, so long as it is natural persons and non-commercial. I wouldn't extend that protection for actively participating commercial or non-natural entities, however. (e.g. a torrent tracker couldn't carry advertising or be run by a business in order to be protected) After all, it's basically happening anyway, and it seems to not be a big deal.
While I'm all for meaningful copyright reform as soon as possible, I was not impressed by Sohn's proposal. Responding to her points:
1. Fair use reform is dangerous; it is essential that a flexible approach be maintained, even though this may result in less certainty. Remember, fair use arose in the mid-19th century; could the jurists of the day have anticipated novel fair uses such as time shifting? Sohn acknowledged that position, but I don't think she paid it enough heed. The only fair use reform I would suggest, though I am ambivalent as to whether it would actually be a good idea, would be to allow facilitators of fair use to stand in the shoes of actual fair users, reversing the decision of Princeton v. Michigan Document Services.
I do agree with the proposal that copyright should be reduced so as to not interfere so much with certain uses, but these should be structured as statutory exceptions separate from fair use, rather than as a part of fair use itself. In particular, I have long advocated for a broad exception for any non-commercial conduct by natural persons. Exceptions for incidental use, and particularly the incidental copies that are inescapable when computers are involved, are also good ideas. Just not all shoehorned into fair use.
Sohn also proposes an exception to the anticircumvention statutes. That's just inadequate, however. Sections 1201 et seq all need to be repealed; it is impossible to fix them. Indeed, what we really need is the opposite provision: that if a work is published (using a broad definition of publication that encompasses public performance and display) by or under the authority of the copyright holder, the work enters the public domain immediately. Further, that one of the duties of the Copyright Office and Library of Congress will be to assist in the efforts of cracking the DRM on those works and of disseminating those works once unprotected. There would need to be a brief period of time for publishers to reissue or forfeit their already-published DRM'ed works, though that wouldn't apply to works that hadn't been published in some manner prior to the reform taking effect.
While we cannot ban DRM outright, as it is a free speech issue, nor would we want to in certain applications, e.g. private communications and information, unpublished manuscripts, etc., we can at least avoid providing the incentives and benefits of copyright to anyone who would use it for published works. Authors would be free to opt to use DRM, but would forgo legal protection. This strikes me as a fair balance.
2. I generally agree with Sohn on this point, though I don't see much point in abolishing statutory damages for secondary infringers if you're already reversing Grokster with a strict reading of Sony.
3. I generally agree with Sohn on this point as well, though really the 512 exception should be made broader, with more general language, lest a court read it too narrowly, as happened in Napster. Also, the remedies for abuse should be broad, ranging from mere money damages, to injunctive relief, and in extreme cases, copyright revocation.
4. I agree that music licensing needs to be reworked from the ground up, as it is hopelessly convoluted. However, I do not think that there should be a public performance right for sound recordings, as it seems not to have produced any incentivizing effect, and clearly harms the public interest otherwise.
Further, I absolutely abhor the idea of non-assignable copyrights of any type. If an author wants to assign some or all rights, then it should be up to him to do so, provided that no one is forcing him. The typical practice in the music industry to present contracts that are heavily weighted in the favor of the publisher does not rise to the level of compulsion. Authors are free to reject those deals, to try to negotiate for something better, and to self-publish if all else fails. Authors are not children, and do not need special paternalistic protection against making foolish deals. I'm willing to speak out against
or whatever it is that makes us keep allowing it to happen at all.
That would be the First Amendment. It protects commercial speech. (See e.g. Central Hudson v. Public Service)
As with door-to-door soliciting, telemarketing relies on your implied consent, but that consent is presumed by default in our society. You can expressly withdraw it on an individual basis (e.g. telling a specific marketer to not call you / go to your door again) or by posting adequate notice (e.g. a do-not-solicit sign on the lawn). The DNC list isn't ideal, IMO, but it basically tries to do that last. Better would be to alter the phone system so that numbers could be flagged as do-not-call directly by the account holder, and would appear as such when dialed, but before the call actually went through, so that the call attempt could be abandoned before it impacted the recipient.
Ultimately, telemarketing is an annoying but unavoidable side-effect of free speech, somewhat like Skokie Nazis.
I just saw that tonight, and I thought that was a pretty good bit. It's basically correct, as well.
Incorrect, at least in the US. Trademarks work more or less like copyright; they are automatic upon use of the mark to trade goods or services (service marks).
I'd say less. First, a trademark does not exist merely once used; it has to actually function as a mark. Using it doesn't make it a protectable source identifier. Second, trademarks arise at common law, while the common law of copyrights is a hair away from not existing at all, it's all so statutory.
However, mark registration is actually a simple process, if one that takes a bit of time, unless the mark has some serious flaws in it.
It is novel and nonobvious, all phones before used dials, this is my artistic design for which I hold the copyright too, any other phones with keypads instead of dials must be derived works.
Well, that you are the first person to put a keypad on a phone was not in the previous post. Certainly whoever did that first could seek a utility patent on it (and probably did).
But not a copyright. First, ideas and methods are not copyrightable, so you cannot stop other people from putting a keypad on a phone or having the keypad function for dialing. All you could argue involves using your particular appearance of keypad (e.g. buttons so close together, particular arrangement, color, etc.). Second, for pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, the utility doctrine applies. Basically nothing useful about the work is copyrightable, and if the useful and non-useful parts of the work are inseperable, then none of it is copyrightable. Courts basically have a million different standards for seperability; I suspect that they make a gut decision and then work out a test to achieve the result. In any event, the keypad performs a useful function and is, if anything, a sculptural work. There doesn't seem to be a way to seperate the purely decorative parts of the keypad from the useful ones, though YMMV. That would mean the utility doctrine makes it uncopyrightable.
Why do I need a patent if I'm already covered by copyright law which lasts for much longer.
Because copyrights and patents have entirely different subject matter. Patents protect inventions; copyrights protect works. These do not overlap, though a single object might embody both inventions and works (e.g. a floppy disk, which is a combination of several inventions -- the disk medium, the plastic of the case, the shutter design, possibly the data format it carries, the use of a protective shell around the medium -- as well as perhaps bearing some works -- a few short stories that are saved on the disk). Trademarks are another kind of protection, but which does not overlap with copyrights or patents.
If you want to protect something, or certain aspects of something, then you need to use the appropriate sort of protection. If you took telephone cases and painted them decoratively, then you could copyright those designs. If you invented the phone keypad, you'd need to get a patent. If you introduced both features at the same time, you'd better have gotten a copyright and a patent or else not care.
Generally, I'd suggest looking at 17 USC 102. 102(a) lists the kinds of things that can be copyrighted (the utility doctrine is in 101). 102(b) lists the kinds of things that are not copyrightable, but do tend to fall into patent territory. It's handy to keep in mind.
hmm... UK law may be different than US law, but I was speaking to a guy who said all those imitation fonts are possible because of the copying process I described. I've never herd anything saying that they are illegal in the states.
In the US, typefaces are not copyrightable at all. You can copy them all you like. Well, new typefaces could be subject to a design patent, but given that 500-year old typefaces are in common use today, and design patents only last for 14 years and many designers don't bother to get them, it's not the biggest stumbling block ever.
However, it has sometimes been argued that computer fonts are actually copyrightable software which outputs uncopyrightable letterforms. It is a fairly dubious position, but not one which gets decided a lot. So you're better off not merely copying some font files, but analyzing the letterforms, etc. and reconstructing it. Also the names of the typeface could be trademarked, so watch out for that.
if I put a keypad on my phone just like another company has a keypad on their phone am I suddenly breaking copyright law because our products have the sameish/copied features?
Poor example. That would run into the utility doctrine, if not 102(b), much like the typefaces do. OTOH, if it was novel and nonobvious, you could try to get a patent.
Well, that is mainly a jurisdictional question. If Amazon.fr is not actually located in the UK, which is what normally puts someone in British jxn, then there has to be some other connection that does it. Merely claiming worldwide jxn isn't really good enough, since you'd have to convince the French courts to go along with it, and they'll likely have a higher standard than unilateral declarations. Otherwise you'd be stuck pursuing whatever assets Amazon.fr might have in the UK, which could be a lot, or could be very little.
In the US, part of the analysis is whether there has been enough contact by the defendant with the jurisdiction in which the suit is brought. Merely putting up a web site is generally not sufficient. Doing business with people in that jurisdiction (and thus voluntarily availing yourself of their laws so that you can form contracts, pursue deadbeats, etc.) generally is.
If this guy had been in the US, and had been acting lawfully under US law, and didn't have any assets in Austria which could have caused him to cave, he would pretty certainly not have a problem keeping the site online.
Remember to think through the consequences of enforcing laws which are foreign to the person being made subject to them: it's undemocratic, a race to the bottom, and often quite easy to abuse. People have to abide by the laws of the places where they are, but not usually places where they are not.