Bullshit! Derivative works are separate works that receive separate protection under the Copyright Act to the extent that they are different from the original work and to the extent that that difference satisfies the requirements for copyright protection. It is, however, infringement to create a derivative work without the permission of the original author. Then you get into a situation where you own the copyright to the derivative work, but cannot exercise any of the rights of a copyright holder without infringing on the rights of the original holder.
Yeah, that worked out real well for me in my Senior Software Project. I ended up stuck integrating the work of several other students, none of whom provided it to me on-time or on-spec, which meant that I was unable to finish my work by the deadline and got stuck with a D+ even though I did the entirety of the system design and most of the integration.
If my memory of Patent Practice and Procedures serves correct, only publicly disclosed inventions can be prior art. Inventions disclosed under an NDA would likely not be considered public and, thus, could not constitute prior art.
IANAL either (damn bar exams!) but it seems to me that the copyright act does not explicitly grant the right to make a backup of a sound recording. That would have to fall under the fair use provisions of section 107. The only section that speaks of archival copies is 117 relating to computer programs. But, using that as a guide, use of the backup must be discontinued when continued possession of the original ceases to be rightful. I take that to mean that if the original is destroyed, but you still have a right to use it, you can still use the backup.
In the US, under the Supremacy Clause, ratified treaties have the force and effect of law. Now, the Convention on Cybercrimes, to the best of my memory, is written so that it isn't self-effecting, but does require contracting parties to enact laws implementing the treaty. We wrote a draft implementing act in my cybercrimes seminar in law school and, although there are ways to build in safeguards, the Convention still requires that we enact laws giving other contracting parties certain rights with respect to data and persons in the US.
It could just as easily be argued that "under the Authority of the United States" refers to the authority to enter into treaties and not the authority to pass other laws. The first part of the Supremacy Clause clearly limits supremacy to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution but the same language does not appear with respect to treaties. It's a well established cannon of construction that if a legislator has demonstrated an ability to make distictions in one section of a law and fails to make the same distinction elsewhere, that distinction should not lightly be implied where it is not made. I'm not saying that treaties shouldn't be limited by the Constitution, I think they should be, I'm simply saying that it's not as clear cut simply looking to the language of the Supremacy Clause.
built a drive repartitioner and tested the hell out of it. A bug here, bye bye personal documents and OS.
They obviously didn't test it well enough. Windows install when great, ran fine, when I tried to boot into OS X again, poof, nothing. Corrupted the HFS+ partition. DiskUtility couldn't repair it. On the bright side, it's my first mac and I've only had it 6 days so no accumulation of settings and data that couldn't easily be replaced.
Then you run into the doctrine of equivalents. Even if one device or method does not correspond 1:1 to the claims in the patent, infringement may be found if the device or method is sufficiently equivalent.
5) iTunes doesn't support Vorbis
6) neither iPod nor iTunes support FLAC
7) my Karma does both
that said, I just got my macbook pro yesterday and I love it.
You're right, but remember that under section 101 "computer program" is so broadly defined that even a data file can be considered a computer program because it "is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result," i.e., displaying an image on a screen in the case of a JPEG file. The ultimate goal of this project is to allow homebrew software on the XB360, or "to achieve interoperability of [] independently created computer program[s] with" the XB360 firmware and OS.
Further, 17 USC 512(c)(1) provides that: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." Combine that with 17 USC 117(a), which reads:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
and, I at least, come to the conclusion that 512 cannot prevent you from making and using a backup copy. You have the right to the backup copy. You have the right to use the any copy if it is "an essential step," as it would be if you had a backup and your original was damaged. Since you have that right under Title 17 and section 512 explicitly does not affect other rights under that Title, section 512 cannot be used to prevent you from modifying access control devices to allow the use of legitimate backups.
Neither is creating a backup copy of software you have purchased, nor is utilising that backup copy. As for the DMCA, there is an explicit exception for reverse engineering for interoperability that does not limit it to interoperability of software with other systems. It could just as easily be read to allow modification for interoperability with other software.
p.p.s. On a contrasting note, if you could find some traditionally copyrighted software, you could indeed lend your CD of it to a friend. It's perfectly legal if you didn't retain your own copy of it. But if it were under the GPL, such would not be the case. Your sharing would be restricted. That is because the GPL requires you to ALSO lend the second CD (the one with all the source code) at the same time. You MUST make the source code available, even if you have the legal right under copyright to "share" the software CD with your friend.
Try again. Read section 3 of the GPL. Under 3(c), all I need to do is tell my friend where I could have originally obtained the source code, or, alternatively, offfer to make the source code available to him myself under 3(b). I get your drift that first sale would allow me to give him the binary without telling him anything, but that's also proving my point. I could reject the offer to use under the GPL and still give him the cd with the binary and nothing more. The only way the GPL comes in is if I want to make a second copy to give one away while keeping one. Then, because I have copied and distributed in ways not permitted under first sale, I must follow the GPL or I am infringing.
Copyright does not have a restriction against not sharing.
Are you insane, or just stupid? That is exactly the point of copyright. You cannot "share" copyrighted material when the "sharing" involves making additional copies of the material. Sure, the first sale doctrine allows you to "share" a work by giving away or selling your legally purchased copy, but that's not what is at issue here. Even if you obtain a work licensed under the CC Share Alike license you can reject the license and give away your copy. You cannot reject the license and make a new copy. The license, in that sense, does not inhibit any right you have under the Copyright Act or the Berne Convention or any other law. It grants you rights you would not otherwise have and places restrictions on those rights if you choose to exercise them. Don't like the conditions? Don't do what you otherwise would not be able to do. The difference between CC and a typic MS EULA is that MS tries to prevent you from doing things that you otherwise would be able to do.
Put another way, if the CC license granted rights without requiring some limitation it would likely be invalid for lack of consideration. There must be a mutually bargained for detriment. Licensor gives up some of his exclusive rights in exchange for your agreement to be bound by his restricitons. If it was simply a one-way exchange, you get rights and give up nothing, where is the consideration for the rights you receive? That, too, is a problem with EULAs. They require you to give up rights you otherwise would have but do not give you any new rights in exchange.
Exactly. A contract is formed when I manifest assent to the offer, not when I decide to manifest assent. Why should termination of a contract be any different?
This is very similar to my view of the 2d Amendment. The point I had tried to make before, however, was that this is a corporate rights view of the Amendment rather than an individual rights view. I'm not sure if you're the one who claimed that the 2d provides an individual right, but if you believe, as I do, that Congress has the right to define the militia and firearm ownership can be restricted to members of that militia then I don't see how it can be an individual right. That said, if Congress goes too far in their attempt to regulate the militia, it's not "well regulated" and they can pry my guns from my cold dead hands. That, however, is just like any other power that Congress has, when they overstep their bounds their actions are meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit! Derivative works are separate works that receive separate protection under the Copyright Act to the extent that they are different from the original work and to the extent that that difference satisfies the requirements for copyright protection. It is, however, infringement to create a derivative work without the permission of the original author. Then you get into a situation where you own the copyright to the derivative work, but cannot exercise any of the rights of a copyright holder without infringing on the rights of the original holder.
Yeah, that worked out real well for me in my Senior Software Project. I ended up stuck integrating the work of several other students, none of whom provided it to me on-time or on-spec, which meant that I was unable to finish my work by the deadline and got stuck with a D+ even though I did the entirety of the system design and most of the integration.
No, this is a direct result of business controlling government rather than the people.
Hey! I do tape-recorder-in-the-jacket bootlegs and mine aren't crappy!
If my memory of Patent Practice and Procedures serves correct, only publicly disclosed inventions can be prior art. Inventions disclosed under an NDA would likely not be considered public and, thus, could not constitute prior art.
IANAL either (damn bar exams!) but it seems to me that the copyright act does not explicitly grant the right to make a backup of a sound recording. That would have to fall under the fair use provisions of section 107. The only section that speaks of archival copies is 117 relating to computer programs. But, using that as a guide, use of the backup must be discontinued when continued possession of the original ceases to be rightful. I take that to mean that if the original is destroyed, but you still have a right to use it, you can still use the backup.
Not if they're from Google. Then it's a gaggle of Google lawyers.
Laugh, but Johnny Carson successfully sued a portable toilet company on pretty much that basis. See Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc.
Oh yeah. Who can forget the classic "You can't xerox a xerox on a xerox, but you can copy a copy on a Xerox copier."
In the US, under the Supremacy Clause, ratified treaties have the force and effect of law. Now, the Convention on Cybercrimes, to the best of my memory, is written so that it isn't self-effecting, but does require contracting parties to enact laws implementing the treaty. We wrote a draft implementing act in my cybercrimes seminar in law school and, although there are ways to build in safeguards, the Convention still requires that we enact laws giving other contracting parties certain rights with respect to data and persons in the US.
It could just as easily be argued that "under the Authority of the United States" refers to the authority to enter into treaties and not the authority to pass other laws. The first part of the Supremacy Clause clearly limits supremacy to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution but the same language does not appear with respect to treaties. It's a well established cannon of construction that if a legislator has demonstrated an ability to make distictions in one section of a law and fails to make the same distinction elsewhere, that distinction should not lightly be implied where it is not made. I'm not saying that treaties shouldn't be limited by the Constitution, I think they should be, I'm simply saying that it's not as clear cut simply looking to the language of the Supremacy Clause.
They obviously didn't test it well enough. Windows install when great, ran fine, when I tried to boot into OS X again, poof, nothing. Corrupted the HFS+ partition. DiskUtility couldn't repair it. On the bright side, it's my first mac and I've only had it 6 days so no accumulation of settings and data that couldn't easily be replaced.
Then you run into the doctrine of equivalents. Even if one device or method does not correspond 1:1 to the claims in the patent, infringement may be found if the device or method is sufficiently equivalent.
5) iTunes doesn't support Vorbis 6) neither iPod nor iTunes support FLAC 7) my Karma does both that said, I just got my macbook pro yesterday and I love it.
akkk! %s/512/1201/g
Further, 17 USC 512(c)(1) provides that: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." Combine that with 17 USC 117(a), which reads:
and, I at least, come to the conclusion that 512 cannot prevent you from making and using a backup copy. You have the right to the backup copy. You have the right to use the any copy if it is "an essential step," as it would be if you had a backup and your original was damaged. Since you have that right under Title 17 and section 512 explicitly does not affect other rights under that Title, section 512 cannot be used to prevent you from modifying access control devices to allow the use of legitimate backups.Neither is creating a backup copy of software you have purchased, nor is utilising that backup copy. As for the DMCA, there is an explicit exception for reverse engineering for interoperability that does not limit it to interoperability of software with other systems. It could just as easily be read to allow modification for interoperability with other software.
Are you insane, or just stupid? That is exactly the point of copyright. You cannot "share" copyrighted material when the "sharing" involves making additional copies of the material. Sure, the first sale doctrine allows you to "share" a work by giving away or selling your legally purchased copy, but that's not what is at issue here. Even if you obtain a work licensed under the CC Share Alike license you can reject the license and give away your copy. You cannot reject the license and make a new copy. The license, in that sense, does not inhibit any right you have under the Copyright Act or the Berne Convention or any other law. It grants you rights you would not otherwise have and places restrictions on those rights if you choose to exercise them. Don't like the conditions? Don't do what you otherwise would not be able to do. The difference between CC and a typic MS EULA is that MS tries to prevent you from doing things that you otherwise would be able to do.
Put another way, if the CC license granted rights without requiring some limitation it would likely be invalid for lack of consideration. There must be a mutually bargained for detriment. Licensor gives up some of his exclusive rights in exchange for your agreement to be bound by his restricitons. If it was simply a one-way exchange, you get rights and give up nothing, where is the consideration for the rights you receive? That, too, is a problem with EULAs. They require you to give up rights you otherwise would have but do not give you any new rights in exchange.
Exactly. A contract is formed when I manifest assent to the offer, not when I decide to manifest assent. Why should termination of a contract be any different?
I agree with you there. It pissed me off that I couldn't timestretch dvds played through mplayer on my mythbox.
Yes, actually, it does. All SATA drives show up as SCSI devices. They still use the SATA subsystem.
"Come together, right now"? or, were you worried about trade sanctions against /. for piracy?
This is very similar to my view of the 2d Amendment. The point I had tried to make before, however, was that this is a corporate rights view of the Amendment rather than an individual rights view. I'm not sure if you're the one who claimed that the 2d provides an individual right, but if you believe, as I do, that Congress has the right to define the militia and firearm ownership can be restricted to members of that militia then I don't see how it can be an individual right. That said, if Congress goes too far in their attempt to regulate the militia, it's not "well regulated" and they can pry my guns from my cold dead hands. That, however, is just like any other power that Congress has, when they overstep their bounds their actions are meaningless.