17 U.S.C. 506 Criminal Offenses (a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either - (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec ode/uscodes/17/ chapters/5/sections/section_506.html
The main link is a bit short of details, but I'd guess that BB is only prividing 'notice of copyright infringement,' rather than alleging a violation of the DMCA itself. If true, FatWallet can provide the ISP with a counter notification under 17 USC 512(g). The DMCA will then require the ISP to replace the material within 10-14 days.
It would also make it tough on public interest lawyers and the mythical 'little guy fighting city hall.' Even those with a legitimate case may not be willing to risk bankruptcy.
I suppose this is a decent geek accomplishment, but I cringe every time I see it . . I'd love a decent disposible digital camera and I'm afraid stuff like this will make other companies afraid to enter the market.
The recipient is supposed to report/pay the sales tax, though few people "remember" to do this. I think most states with sales taxes will enforce the rule w.r.t. automobiles purchased in non-sales-tax states.
>If so can you get a patent without even having a >functional version of something?
You don't need an actual working implementation of the invention, but you need an "enabling disclosure." Basically, you need enough that the rest is SMOP
>And then use that patent to quash someone else >who produces a working version at the same time >but files for a patent a day or two later?
In the US, it depends on who conceived the invention first.
>Can you thus patent something without a working >version? That is, just patent the general ideas, >never bother to actually go though the process of >making it work, and use those general ideas to >claim fees from someone who does actually make it >work.
See first answer.
>And you can do this even if the process would be >obvious to someone versed in the field?
A patent should not be granted and/or is invalid unless the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Obviously, whether or not this is true is often debateable.
I hope you are right, though I admit my libertarian side twinges a bit every time I try to find the word "privacy" in the Constitution. Perhaps I need a different editor;-)
Perhaps its merely semantics, but the 1st Amendment does apply to your example ad. The law banning that ad is still consititutional because the government interest is important (save kids) and the law narrowly tailored at that interest (ban ads most likely to influence kids). Put another way, 1st amendment protections are not absolute.
Free speach definately applies to truthful commerical speech, the level of protection is just lower than for political speech. IMHO, this law has problems even under the lower standard. Telemarketing calls are merely anonying, not life-threatening (i.e., not addressing a huge problem) and the law discriminates based on message more than necessary (i.e., not narrowly tailored at solving the problem).
People forget that the DMCA provides ISP's with immunity to copyright suit if they take down the offending material promptly. It was essentially a negotiation where copyright owners agreed to give up their right to sue their most effecive point of control in return for getting protection against so-called black boxes.
IMHO (and I suspect I'm in the minority on this board), the Internet would be a far worse place without the DMCA. Without its protection, no ISP would allow individuals to post material - they simply could not take on the infringement risks. This ability, in turn, is what makes the Internet a unique medium.
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
A related problem is jurisdiction. Even if the feds passed a tough anti-spam law, the spammers would simply move offshore and laugh at any attempts to collect the fine. Unlike telemarketing, email does not respect national boundries.
My guess is that this law will be mostly against legitimate businesses that goof-up.
A bit off topic, but it seems an awful stretch apply the DMCA to this book. The "trafficing" provisions of the DMCA only apply to a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof." (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=17&sec=1201)
None of these categories appear to cover a book, regardless of what it teaches. The anticircumvention provision would not apply either because the book itself doesn't circumvent anything (doing what it teaches might violate the law, but that's hardly new or unique). I suspect that the DMCA is being used as an excuse here.
This is one of the few cars that I'd recommend leasing - the powertrain is new (version 1.0 is just as bad in autos as in software) and unusually complex.
It might help a bit against the RIAA - copyright damages vary depending on how bad an actor you were. They could use this to argue for damages at the low end of the scale. I suspect they still have a decent case against Kazaa, too, despite the language - courts have ignored liability disclaimers in other situations (but good luck trying to collect).
The few musicians (ok musician, I'm a geek) I know was extremely excited the day he signed with an RIAA company. They can't have screwed him that badly.
As a practical matter, how much bandwidth does spam really take? If I do the math right, spam costs 0.5 MB/day worth of bandwidth (I seem to get 250-300 spam messages before hotmail complains about exceeding my 2 MB storage, and get about 50 spams/day). 0.5 Mb is 1 minute of surfing or 20% of a shared mp3. Email traffic presumably has a low priority to boot. Am I missing missing something?
Given the huge percentage of reader's whose salary/carreer are based on the value of IP, I'm always surprised at the general hostility toward the RIAA. What would you think if someone posted the source code to your company's software on the internet *without your permission*? Or submitted your ph.d dissertation to a journal under their own name? Or stole your idea for a new product?
A couple of corrections:
1) The DMCA does NOT limit fair use rights. The DMCA just says that you cannot sell a device that circumvents access/copy controls, or circumvent access controls. You can still make fair use copies, and can even circumvent copy controls.
2) The Betamax case has nothing to do with making copies of a work. That case was about whether a manufacturer of a devive that could be used to infringe copyrights was liable as a contributory infringer. Incidentially, the DMCA does not affect this rule either.
Slashdot Mirror
At this level, it is also a criminal offense.
c ode/uscodes/17/ chapters/5/sections/section_506.html
17 U.S.C. 506 Criminal Offenses
(a) Criminal Infringement. - Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either -
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/case
Also, the spammers will simply move to some island where they laugh at US patent laws.
The main link is a bit short of details, but I'd guess that BB is only prividing 'notice of copyright infringement,' rather than alleging a violation of the DMCA itself. If true, FatWallet can provide the ISP with a counter notification under 17 USC 512(g). The DMCA will then require the ISP to replace the material within 10-14 days.
It would also make it tough on public interest lawyers and the mythical 'little guy fighting city hall.' Even those with a legitimate case may not be willing to risk bankruptcy.
I suppose this is a decent geek accomplishment, but I cringe every time I see it . . I'd love a decent disposible digital camera and I'm afraid stuff like this will make other companies afraid to enter the market.
The recipient is supposed to report/pay the sales tax, though few people "remember" to do this. I think most states with sales taxes will enforce the rule w.r.t. automobiles purchased in non-sales-tax states.
SMOP, and probably not all that tough anyway. The national chains already have to do this.
>If so can you get a patent without even having a >functional version of something?
You don't need an actual working implementation of the invention, but you need an "enabling disclosure." Basically, you need enough that the rest is SMOP
>And then use that patent to quash someone else >who produces a working version at the same time >but files for a patent a day or two later?
In the US, it depends on who conceived the invention first.
>Can you thus patent something without a working >version? That is, just patent the general ideas, >never bother to actually go though the process of >making it work, and use those general ideas to >claim fees from someone who does actually make it >work.
See first answer.
>And you can do this even if the process would be >obvious to someone versed in the field?
A patent should not be granted and/or is invalid unless the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. Obviously, whether or not this is true is often debateable.
I hope you are right, though I admit my libertarian side twinges a bit every time I try to find the word "privacy" in the Constitution. Perhaps I need a different editor ;-)
Perhaps its merely semantics, but the 1st Amendment does apply to your example ad. The law banning that ad is still consititutional because the government interest is important (save kids) and the law narrowly tailored at that interest (ban ads most likely to influence kids). Put another way, 1st amendment protections are not absolute.
Free speach definately applies to truthful commerical speech, the level of protection is just lower than for political speech. IMHO, this law has problems even under the lower standard. Telemarketing calls are merely anonying, not life-threatening (i.e., not addressing a huge problem) and the law discriminates based on message more than necessary (i.e., not narrowly tailored at solving the problem).
You mean slap a 40% tax on them?
Another obvious solution is to buy the non-prebate cartridges. Presumably more upfront, but maybe cheaper in the long run.
People forget that the DMCA provides ISP's with immunity to copyright suit if they take down the offending material promptly. It was essentially a negotiation where copyright owners agreed to give up their right to sue their most effecive point of control in return for getting protection against so-called black boxes.
IMHO (and I suspect I'm in the minority on this board), the Internet would be a far worse place without the DMCA. Without its protection, no ISP would allow individuals to post material - they simply could not take on the infringement risks. This ability, in turn, is what makes the Internet a unique medium.
The DMCA only applies to a device that:
h .p l?title=17&sec=1201)
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_searc
There is no chance that a crowbar or x-ray device meets this test.
A related problem is jurisdiction. Even if the feds passed a tough anti-spam law, the spammers would simply move offshore and laugh at any attempts to collect the fine. Unlike telemarketing, email does not respect national boundries. My guess is that this law will be mostly against legitimate businesses that goof-up.
Tough to say - it's a tax break for the rich. Shouldn't we be taxing it and using the money to feed starving kids in Nebraska, or something like that?
A bit off topic, but it seems an awful stretch apply the DMCA to this book. The "trafficing" provisions of the DMCA only apply to a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof." (see http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=17&sec=1201)
None of these categories appear to cover a book, regardless of what it teaches. The anticircumvention provision would not apply either because the book itself doesn't circumvent anything (doing what it teaches might violate the law, but that's hardly new or unique). I suspect that the DMCA is being used as an excuse here.
This is one of the few cars that I'd recommend leasing - the powertrain is new (version 1.0 is just as bad in autos as in software) and unusually complex.
It might help a bit against the RIAA - copyright damages vary depending on how bad an actor you were. They could use this to argue for damages at the low end of the scale. I suspect they still have a decent case against Kazaa, too, despite the language - courts have ignored liability disclaimers in other situations (but good luck trying to collect).
The few musicians (ok musician, I'm a geek) I know was extremely excited the day he signed with an RIAA company. They can't have screwed him that badly.
As a practical matter, how much bandwidth does spam really take? If I do the math right, spam costs 0.5 MB/day worth of bandwidth (I seem to get 250-300 spam messages before hotmail complains about exceeding my 2 MB storage, and get about 50 spams/day). 0.5 Mb is 1 minute of surfing or 20% of a shared mp3. Email traffic presumably has a low priority to boot. Am I missing missing something?
I was trying to amplify your argument, not contradict it. Sorry about the confusion.
Given the huge percentage of reader's whose salary/carreer are based on the value of IP, I'm always surprised at the general hostility toward the RIAA. What would you think if someone posted the source code to your company's software on the internet *without your permission*? Or submitted your ph.d dissertation to a journal under their own name? Or stole your idea for a new product?
A couple of corrections: 1) The DMCA does NOT limit fair use rights. The DMCA just says that you cannot sell a device that circumvents access/copy controls, or circumvent access controls. You can still make fair use copies, and can even circumvent copy controls. 2) The Betamax case has nothing to do with making copies of a work. That case was about whether a manufacturer of a devive that could be used to infringe copyrights was liable as a contributory infringer. Incidentially, the DMCA does not affect this rule either.