It means that if you sue a contributor based on patent infringement, you cannot benefit from any patent licenses shared with you via the Apache license. More simply, it means if you cause trouble you can't benefit from the shared work. It's a condition of use.
Because the license indemnifies each contributor under every legal theory, they released any claim against commercial distribution. Also by stating that any contributor has a right to create a derivative, a creator can file a copyright in the derivative and obtain a right of distribution under Title 17 of the US Code. One does not get the copyright in the elements they did not create and Apache could argue that the contributor infringed if they do not site the appropriate (c) notice for those elements. This seems a bit tedious and could end up looking like the Matrix screen credits.
What is unusual about this license is that it grants a license to the copyright. Most licenses only grant a right contained and protected by copyright law. For example, a company may grant a license to distribute a good, or to reproduce elements of an original work of authorship. I have never heard of being able to license a copyright. We assign and transfer copyrights and we license trademarks and rights granted under tm, (c), and or patent.
I wonder if this agreement is really valid. Lets say that someone modifies some code and then registers the copyright and does not inform the Library of Congress about the Apache license. Moreover, what if the "thief" then files suit against derivative authors. The problem here is that fed law trumps the law of contracts and under federal law you can share copyright in a work- it's called joint ownership. One suggestion is that Apache could grant a nonexclusive right to create derivative works so long as they meet the highest standards in the industry. It would be interesting to see if Apache filed the copyright through the LOC? It might be interesting to look into how foreign civil law treats software because it is more natural law/moral rights based and does not allow corporate entities to own the full ip rights of a creator.
What's worse is under the DMCA, there are severe civil and criminal penalties...not to mention any impact WIPO treaties can eventually have for international infringers... Under DMCA the minimum fine is $750 per downloaded file. Criminal penalties, even for first-time offenders can be up to $250,000 in fines and five years in prison. Could you imagine serving 5 years for downloading a song. Well, off to TM class. Hope to run into your comments soon!
Thanks for your feedback- just got out of a 3 hour copyright law exam and based on the June 2003 injunction, I thought that they might try and come down harder this time.
Remeber this:
Intellectual Property: "Amicus Brief in Support of RIAA in RIAA v. Verizon" - June 24, 2003 As required by court order, Verizon gave the RIAA the names of four users suspected of illegally downloading digital copies of songs. RIAA then sent letters to these four individuals demanding that they stop their file sharing activities. RIAA also sent a letter to a fifth user identified by Earthlink, which had refused to disclose the identity of its subscriber until the Verizon decision came down. RIAA followed this up with a warning that it will launch a massive campaign to target individuals who offer "substantial amounts" of music through P2P networks.
I am interested in finding out if the relief is purely injunctive? Under the DMCA and Title 17 (which is the copyright statute), the RIAA can seek a criminal penalty for knowingly violated Fed (C) law. I hope they only are seeking injunctive relief because people downloading music could be subject to statutory damages based on the intent and I feel that the general public is not well versed in authors exclusive rights...although ignorance is no defense to statutory violations.
The price differnece must also reflect the different royalty obligations in the different countries. Here are a list of the different collective management societies existing (in case anyone wants to look further into this):
Songwriters Copyright Bureau's
Visit our Associations and Organisations section which contains links to worldwide copyright and licensing offices and other resources.
ALCS - Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society - UK
AMCOS - Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society
APRA - Australisian Performing Rights Association
ASCAP - American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
BIEM - International organisation in France that represents mechanical rights societies
BMI - Broadcast Music Incorporated an American performing rights organization
BUMA / STEMRA / CEDAR - The Netherlands Copyright Organizations
CISAC - The International Confederation Of Societies Of Authors And Composers
CMRRA - The Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency
GEMA - German Society For Musical Performing and Mechanical Reproduction Rights
IMRO - Irish Music Rights Organization
JASRAC - Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers.
KODA - Copyright & Performing Rights Society for Denmark, Greenland & Faroe Islands.
MCPS - British Mechanical Copyright Protection Society Limited
NCB - Nordisk Copyright and Mechanical Rights Bureau
NMPA - Harry Fox Agency, American Performing rihgs
PRS - UK Performing Right Society
SABAM - Belgian Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers
SACEM - Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music in France
SACD - Society of Authors and Composers of Dramatic Works in France
SESAC - Society of European Stage Authors & Composers USA
SGAE - Spanish Society of Authors and Publishers.
SOCAN - Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada
STIM - Swedish Performing Rights Society
SUISA - Swiss Performing Rights Society
TONO - The Norwegian Performing Right Society
One way the Federal Government could violate a nondisclosure agreement between Northwest and passengers is based on civil immunity, which the Federal governement is granted in claims arising out of breach of contract.
Under Constitutional law,applying a strict scrutiny approach (because a fundamental right of privacy is at issue) to the Feds acquisition of personal data from Northwest, the Feds could argue that there were no less necessary means for monitoring security during times of national emergency. Was there a statute passed that allowed them to get the info from Northwest? After I write that, I beleive there may be alternative means and that is Northwest disclosing to the passengers that any information used in reserving a flight is subject to the disclosure to Federal Authorities- maybe this language can be used in the future!!!!
Fortunately, current intellectual property law remedies digital infringement allowing petetioners to cover the costs of litigating the violators, so long as creators secure these protections through the Copyright Office and or the USPTO. Having worked for major media companies, we are able to go after infringers as well as prevent parties from infringing upon our rights.
One criticism of this process is that it takes a lot of people to preemptively protect digital content. Most companies using the digital mediums release products to millions of people all over the world and only have 20 lawyers overseeing the rights. Companies are relying on software to keep track of ip rights, still the legal minds making the calls and entering the information, which later is shared with thousands of internal clients, are taxed by the level of responsibilty and the lack of investment companies put into the number of people monitoring the IP assets.
Hopefully, companies will create a larger budget in their legal departments and employ enough IP specialists who know how to protect the assets through the regulations and not simply rely on software/digital services to protect them, that is unless, the software can represent their interests in negotiations and court.
The Sims online game could be commented on freely, under the 1st amendment, if a court would consider the comments newsworthy. For examply, Slashdot is allowed to discuss the events relating to this story via 1st amendment rights.
It seems that the Professor's comments were more academic and should have been published via academic means where he would have an automatic license to comment on the game, via ip exceptions relating to educational use of protected materials.
What about the first sale doctrine in copyright which allows resale after the first purchase of a game?
On a personal note, hope these predictions ring untrue b/c I don't want to run into him and he spent most of his free time on PS2 so I am hoping that games develope enough to keep him inside his apartment.
The biggest complexity is the million jobs that exist because of the fragmented structure of medical care providers. Unfortunately, the corporate form has proven that all corporate formations are not for the benefit of large numbers. Just the opposite, a few will profit, many will work under them, and many are left uncovered- very sad!
I agree that if there is a national interest to violate copyright,patent and tm, it would be in the interest of establishing better medical care. Would open source achieve this or might it just encourage more corporate formations controlling people's health????
It's better not to use a common word but when this word was used, was it common- actually I have rarely heard it used outside of the girly mag world. It only takes 6 months to establish use of the word in commerce so even if people used this term in the 50s/60s by now it is distinctive enough to qualify for tm as it did. I do agree that if you are going to use a common word as a tradename it's best to include a symbol or a company logo with it. Think of the thousands of companies who do this and succeed at maintaing and defending the mark (i.e., monster, discover, giant,times, et cetera).
MS should have to change because as consumers we have choices in which format we would like to purchase music files!
I wonder if I walked into a grocery store and if everytime I went through the cereal aisle, a Cheerios box jumped into my cart, would I feel violated and I must say yes!!!!
Using a registered trademark and then disclaiming
that the name may confuse the consumer because he or she may believe they are at a Playboy sponsored site is an admisssion that the use of the tm is confusing. The 9th Circuit is 100% correct in its holding!!!!
The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans.
Regulations should be adopted to advise the general public on any potential health problems resulting from genetically modified fish and human consumption. After all, Dolly died pretty young- right?
By not setting any standards, other biotech companies who have the potential to genetically modify larger living organisms directly related to the food chain, which could harm the health of humans. If there are no standards, what would stop them from getting away with it????
Slashdot Mirror
It means that if you sue a contributor based on patent infringement, you cannot benefit from any patent licenses shared with you via the Apache license. More simply, it means if you cause trouble you can't benefit from the shared work. It's a condition of use.
Because the license indemnifies each contributor under every legal theory, they released any claim against commercial distribution. Also by stating that any contributor has a right to create a derivative, a creator can file a copyright in the derivative and obtain a right of distribution under Title 17 of the US Code. One does not get the copyright in the elements they did not create and Apache could argue that the contributor infringed if they do not site the appropriate (c) notice for those elements. This seems a bit tedious and could end up looking like the Matrix screen credits.
What is unusual about this license is that it grants a license to the copyright. Most licenses only grant a right contained and protected by copyright law. For example, a company may grant a license to distribute a good, or to reproduce elements of an original work of authorship. I have never heard of being able to license a copyright. We assign and transfer copyrights and we license trademarks and rights granted under tm, (c), and or patent. I wonder if this agreement is really valid. Lets say that someone modifies some code and then registers the copyright and does not inform the Library of Congress about the Apache license. Moreover, what if the "thief" then files suit against derivative authors. The problem here is that fed law trumps the law of contracts and under federal law you can share copyright in a work- it's called joint ownership. One suggestion is that Apache could grant a nonexclusive right to create derivative works so long as they meet the highest standards in the industry. It would be interesting to see if Apache filed the copyright through the LOC? It might be interesting to look into how foreign civil law treats software because it is more natural law/moral rights based and does not allow corporate entities to own the full ip rights of a creator.
What's worse is under the DMCA, there are severe civil and criminal penalties...not to mention any impact WIPO treaties can eventually have for international infringers... Under DMCA the minimum fine is $750 per downloaded file. Criminal penalties, even for first-time offenders can be up to $250,000 in fines and five years in prison. Could you imagine serving 5 years for downloading a song. Well, off to TM class. Hope to run into your comments soon!
Thanks for your feedback- just got out of a 3 hour copyright law exam and based on the June 2003 injunction, I thought that they might try and come down harder this time. Remeber this: Intellectual Property: "Amicus Brief in Support of RIAA in RIAA v. Verizon" - June 24, 2003 As required by court order, Verizon gave the RIAA the names of four users suspected of illegally downloading digital copies of songs. RIAA then sent letters to these four individuals demanding that they stop their file sharing activities. RIAA also sent a letter to a fifth user identified by Earthlink, which had refused to disclose the identity of its subscriber until the Verizon decision came down. RIAA followed this up with a warning that it will launch a massive campaign to target individuals who offer "substantial amounts" of music through P2P networks.
I am interested in finding out if the relief is purely injunctive? Under the DMCA and Title 17 (which is the copyright statute), the RIAA can seek a criminal penalty for knowingly violated Fed (C) law. I hope they only are seeking injunctive relief because people downloading music could be subject to statutory damages based on the intent and I feel that the general public is not well versed in authors exclusive rights...although ignorance is no defense to statutory violations.
The price differnece must also reflect the different royalty obligations in the different countries. Here are a list of the different collective management societies existing (in case anyone wants to look further into this): Songwriters Copyright Bureau's Visit our Associations and Organisations section which contains links to worldwide copyright and licensing offices and other resources. ALCS - Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society - UK AMCOS - Australasian Mechanical Copyright Owners Society APRA - Australisian Performing Rights Association ASCAP - American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers BIEM - International organisation in France that represents mechanical rights societies BMI - Broadcast Music Incorporated an American performing rights organization BUMA / STEMRA / CEDAR - The Netherlands Copyright Organizations CISAC - The International Confederation Of Societies Of Authors And Composers CMRRA - The Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency GEMA - German Society For Musical Performing and Mechanical Reproduction Rights IMRO - Irish Music Rights Organization JASRAC - Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers. KODA - Copyright & Performing Rights Society for Denmark, Greenland & Faroe Islands. MCPS - British Mechanical Copyright Protection Society Limited NCB - Nordisk Copyright and Mechanical Rights Bureau NMPA - Harry Fox Agency, American Performing rihgs PRS - UK Performing Right Society SABAM - Belgian Society of Authors, Composers, and Publishers SACEM - Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers of Music in France SACD - Society of Authors and Composers of Dramatic Works in France SESAC - Society of European Stage Authors & Composers USA SGAE - Spanish Society of Authors and Publishers. SOCAN - Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada STIM - Swedish Performing Rights Society SUISA - Swiss Performing Rights Society TONO - The Norwegian Performing Right Society
One way the Federal Government could violate a nondisclosure agreement between Northwest and passengers is based on civil immunity, which the Federal governement is granted in claims arising out of breach of contract. Under Constitutional law,applying a strict scrutiny approach (because a fundamental right of privacy is at issue) to the Feds acquisition of personal data from Northwest, the Feds could argue that there were no less necessary means for monitoring security during times of national emergency. Was there a statute passed that allowed them to get the info from Northwest? After I write that, I beleive there may be alternative means and that is Northwest disclosing to the passengers that any information used in reserving a flight is subject to the disclosure to Federal Authorities- maybe this language can be used in the future!!!!
Fortunately, current intellectual property law remedies digital infringement allowing petetioners to cover the costs of litigating the violators, so long as creators secure these protections through the Copyright Office and or the USPTO. Having worked for major media companies, we are able to go after infringers as well as prevent parties from infringing upon our rights. One criticism of this process is that it takes a lot of people to preemptively protect digital content. Most companies using the digital mediums release products to millions of people all over the world and only have 20 lawyers overseeing the rights. Companies are relying on software to keep track of ip rights, still the legal minds making the calls and entering the information, which later is shared with thousands of internal clients, are taxed by the level of responsibilty and the lack of investment companies put into the number of people monitoring the IP assets. Hopefully, companies will create a larger budget in their legal departments and employ enough IP specialists who know how to protect the assets through the regulations and not simply rely on software/digital services to protect them, that is unless, the software can represent their interests in negotiations and court.
Excellent point!!!!!
The Sims online game could be commented on freely, under the 1st amendment, if a court would consider the comments newsworthy. For examply, Slashdot is allowed to discuss the events relating to this story via 1st amendment rights. It seems that the Professor's comments were more academic and should have been published via academic means where he would have an automatic license to comment on the game, via ip exceptions relating to educational use of protected materials.
What about the first sale doctrine in copyright which allows resale after the first purchase of a game? On a personal note, hope these predictions ring untrue b/c I don't want to run into him and he spent most of his free time on PS2 so I am hoping that games develope enough to keep him inside his apartment.
The biggest complexity is the million jobs that exist because of the fragmented structure of medical care providers. Unfortunately, the corporate form has proven that all corporate formations are not for the benefit of large numbers. Just the opposite, a few will profit, many will work under them, and many are left uncovered- very sad! I agree that if there is a national interest to violate copyright,patent and tm, it would be in the interest of establishing better medical care. Would open source achieve this or might it just encourage more corporate formations controlling people's health????
It's better not to use a common word but when this word was used, was it common- actually I have rarely heard it used outside of the girly mag world. It only takes 6 months to establish use of the word in commerce so even if people used this term in the 50s/60s by now it is distinctive enough to qualify for tm as it did. I do agree that if you are going to use a common word as a tradename it's best to include a symbol or a company logo with it. Think of the thousands of companies who do this and succeed at maintaing and defending the mark (i.e., monster, discover, giant,times, et cetera).
MS should have to change because as consumers we have choices in which format we would like to purchase music files! I wonder if I walked into a grocery store and if everytime I went through the cereal aisle, a Cheerios box jumped into my cart, would I feel violated and I must say yes!!!!
Using a registered trademark and then disclaiming that the name may confuse the consumer because he or she may believe they are at a Playboy sponsored site is an admisssion that the use of the tm is confusing. The 9th Circuit is 100% correct in its holding!!!!
The suit alleges the hidden genes can threaten human and animal health if the biotech fish are released and consumed by other fish that eventually are eaten by humans. Regulations should be adopted to advise the general public on any potential health problems resulting from genetically modified fish and human consumption. After all, Dolly died pretty young- right? By not setting any standards, other biotech companies who have the potential to genetically modify larger living organisms directly related to the food chain, which could harm the health of humans. If there are no standards, what would stop them from getting away with it????