Licensing software is a copyright concept (unless you've patented it). Folks only need a license (and can only be bound by one) if they're infinging on one of the copyright monopolies: making copies, distributing copies, and making derivative works.
So you can only attach conditions of any sort if your proposed licensees will be doing any of those acts. It doesn't sound to me like you could build a license to covers your desire to get credit in papers when somebody has simply used your software. Use of software is not (under most reasonable interpretations of the law, MAI vs. Peak notwithstanding) something that triggers the need for a copyright license.
Well, I for one happened to like the whole of the Baroque Cycle... but then again I'm from that strangest faction of geeks, the historians of science.
If history of science doesn't do it for you, then I can see not loving the Baroque as much as Crypto, which covers the whole '90s boom startup thing, which may be more familiar to most/. readers.
Well, everybody has to make money. As a lawyer who has had a couple of RIAA cases referred my way, I can honestly say that there is no upside at all to taking the cases and doing any fighting in court. The costs of doing discovery and filing responses in the court will add up quickly enough that the defendants better option is just to pay the settlement and be done with it.
Even if there was a chance that the defendant would prevail, they'd be in a deeper hole than if they settled. And the RIAA has demonstrated that they'll fight an award of attorney's fees for a defendant, making any eventual payout years down the pike.
If I didn't have student loans that needed regular payments, and the ordinary costs of living, taking on one of these cases and fighting tooth and nail seems like a worthwhile thing to do. But I can't afford to do it.
We should be glad that NYCL is fighting this fight, and God bless whoever is paying him (or if he's been successful enough in his practice up to this point to be bankrolling it himself.)
This just goes to show that the whole copyright system is absurdly broken.
A more reasonable legal tool for knocking this off the internet might be for the estate of the dead guy to sue under an right of publicity/invasion of privacy theory.
Some stuff doesn't belong in public circulation... but copyright is not the only way to control that sort of thing.
The ex post facto rule only applies to criminal laws. Since copyright is quasi-criminal it may have some place in this discussion, but in non-criminal situations, retroactive laws are not explicitly unconstitutional.
I don't know that getting a strongarm monopoly is the only reason that these guys would desire to maintain some rights in the copyright to the code they created. They may very well recycle snippets of code from project to project, and don't want to be put in a position where a former client finds out that they do so, and then claims that they're infringing on a copyright for code that they themselves wrote. I'd certainly not want to find myself in that position.
There has to be an agreement to share rights in the code. The best position to be in would be joint ownership of the copyright. That way, both parties can do whatever they want with it. IF this isn't a simple work-for-hire situation, that seems quite fair, unless the customer is willing to pay a lot more money to the developer for sole ownership of the copyright, who then be saddled with the need to reinvent the wheel on future projects.
Ummm. x264 takes 3 times as long to encode as divx does, and the compression and quality are not 3 times better. Got another no-cost H.264 encoder to recommend?
NO. Youtube has depended on copyrighted material for 100% of its content. You forget that everything set down in a tangible medium is automatically copyrighted. This post is no more or less copyrighted than last week's Colbert Reports.
The point of distinction is that Youtube has depended on unlicensed copyrighted materials. For stuff you or I make with our video cameras, we have the power to license it to whomever we want... unless it contains somebody else's copyrighted material, like a song playing in the background, or a TV show on a screen in the frame...
Well, there is no independent exclusive right to "use" code that is licensable under copyright law. The relevant copyright rights are to copy, distribute, publicly display, and to make derivative works. Language about a license to "use" is an invitation to litigation over its validity. Despite the fact that such language is a common meme, its basis in the law is tenuous.
Well, initiating a lawsuit shouldn't be beyond the ability or budget of anybody here. Depends on your state, but some places you can file a "Writ of Summons" that lets the other party know you've got beef with them, and open the door to discovery for you, without having to draft a proper legal complaint. The pre-complaint discovery is to help you draft the complaint... If the form for the Writ wants the gist of your action, the magic word here is "nuisance".
Serve the grumpy old geezer with a Writ, and then serve him with interrogatories asking all kinds of information about the device, where he purchased it, when he installed it, why he installed it, what its specs are, etc... . If he ignores them, then pay a lawyer to argue for sanctions for contempt of court for his disobedience of the order to answer them that comes with the interrogatories.
Where I am, you're looking at a total bill of maybe $500 at that point, and most of that is paying the lawyer to put the screws to him. If the lawyer is good, you might get attorney's fees assessed against the grumpy old guy too, so you costs just went way down again.
Hear Hear!
A requirement like this, so long as the kids are actually taught what copyright law is all about, will likely scare them quite a bit. Copyright is a pretty extreme statute when you think about what it says.
Some highlights for the syllabus:
1) Anything with a tiny spark of creativity in it is automatically copyrighted at the moment it is fixed (e.g. written down, saved, recorded, etc.)
2) Nobody needs to give notice to anybody else that a work is copyrighted.
3) If anybody makes a copy of a copyrighted work that has been registered (cost: peanuts), they can get stuck with paying the legal fees for the person suing them.
4) Fair use is only a defense if the judge in your particular case thinks it is.
5) Every time you use a photocopier, you are probably infringing on a registered copyright, and could be hit with a judgment for $150,000 for each copyrighted work you copied. Think it's fair use? You have to get a court to agree with you.
6) Copyright extends generations beyond the death of the author.
7) Copyrights are almost always taken by publishers in return for publishing works by authors, and royalties are paid according to the publisher's accounting system, which may or may not reflect reality.
If kids learn this stuff, they'll be much more educated voters than the folks casting ballots now who can't tell a copyright from a trademark from a hole in the ground.
Educated voters might just get this legal insanity changed.
Great analysis. This is stupid half-thought-through security theater.
I wonder what numbskull consultant gave them that idea, and how many thousands of dollars the company spent for it...
Since each contributor to the kernel doesn't sign away the copyright to a central holding entity, keeping track of who has a copyright interest in the kernel to license is tough enough... now RMS is demanding the contributors opt between v2 and v3? Nuts.
Even if this is a short range technology, it sounds like it could do away with just about every cable connection going into the back of my desktop box except the power cord.
Let it be super Bluetooth... that would be great!
Well, being able to get all of the google searches somebody performed in a certain time frame would be useful to lots more than just divorce lawyers... There are plenty of legal matters where "intent" is a factor... for example, in some states the tort of civil conspiracy requires proof of "malice". Search records, and more general net usage records could go a long way toward proving malice or other states of mind.
Since lawyers are required to be zealous in their representation of their clients, subpoening this stuff is going to become much more common once it gets onto lawyers's radar.
The defendant knowing nothing about p2p or computer networks should have no bearing on the arguments his lawyer makes in presenting a defense. Sure, you don't call the defendant as an expert on network security, but it is entirely consistent that the def knows nothing about computer networks or p2p and raises a wireless hijacking defense through a skillful lawyer.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like the government contracts out most of its operations to private companies now, or anything unthinkable like that, right?
Licensing software is a copyright concept (unless you've patented it). Folks only need a license (and can only be bound by one) if they're infinging on one of the copyright monopolies: making copies, distributing copies, and making derivative works.
So you can only attach conditions of any sort if your proposed licensees will be doing any of those acts. It doesn't sound to me like you could build a license to covers your desire to get credit in papers when somebody has simply used your software. Use of software is not (under most reasonable interpretations of the law, MAI vs. Peak notwithstanding) something that triggers the need for a copyright license.
Well, I for one happened to like the whole of the Baroque Cycle... but then again I'm from that strangest faction of geeks, the historians of science.
If history of science doesn't do it for you, then I can see not loving the Baroque as much as Crypto, which covers the whole '90s boom startup thing, which may be more familiar to most /. readers.
Hey- If either of them were taught well in the schools, it might not be the problem it has become.
Unfortunately, making sure people understand the concepts has become secondary to the educational process.
Well, everybody has to make money. As a lawyer who has had a couple of RIAA cases referred my way, I can honestly say that there is no upside at all to taking the cases and doing any fighting in court. The costs of doing discovery and filing responses in the court will add up quickly enough that the defendants better option is just to pay the settlement and be done with it.
Even if there was a chance that the defendant would prevail, they'd be in a deeper hole than if they settled. And the RIAA has demonstrated that they'll fight an award of attorney's fees for a defendant, making any eventual payout years down the pike.
If I didn't have student loans that needed regular payments, and the ordinary costs of living, taking on one of these cases and fighting tooth and nail seems like a worthwhile thing to do. But I can't afford to do it.
We should be glad that NYCL is fighting this fight, and God bless whoever is paying him (or if he's been successful enough in his practice up to this point to be bankrolling it himself.)
I insist on the the most effective automotive anti-theft device ever invented or marketed: the stick shift.
Who needs a flashing red light when there is a third pedal and gear shift that scare the crap out of 90% of potential drivers of my car?
Good calls. The Nemeth books are quality.
Shakespeare is in the public domain. No copyright, no monopoly on derivative works, no fair use defense needed.
A more reasonable legal tool for knocking this off the internet might be for the estate of the dead guy to sue under an right of publicity/invasion of privacy theory.
Some stuff doesn't belong in public circulation... but copyright is not the only way to control that sort of thing.
A well respected author of a beautiful book... and a right-wing nutjob.
The ex post facto rule only applies to criminal laws. Since copyright is quasi-criminal it may have some place in this discussion, but in non-criminal situations, retroactive laws are not explicitly unconstitutional.
No corruption to be seen here in the DOJ. Move along.
Yup, this looks like right wingnut FUD.
... in Boston?
I don't know that getting a strongarm monopoly is the only reason that these guys would desire to maintain some rights in the copyright to the code they created. They may very well recycle snippets of code from project to project, and don't want to be put in a position where a former client finds out that they do so, and then claims that they're infringing on a copyright for code that they themselves wrote. I'd certainly not want to find myself in that position.
There has to be an agreement to share rights in the code. The best position to be in would be joint ownership of the copyright. That way, both parties can do whatever they want with it. IF this isn't a simple work-for-hire situation, that seems quite fair, unless the customer is willing to pay a lot more money to the developer for sole ownership of the copyright, who then be saddled with the need to reinvent the wheel on future projects.
Ummm. x264 takes 3 times as long to encode as divx does, and the compression and quality are not 3 times better. Got another no-cost H.264 encoder to recommend?
NO. Youtube has depended on copyrighted material for 100% of its content. You forget that everything set down in a tangible medium is automatically copyrighted. This post is no more or less copyrighted than last week's Colbert Reports.
The point of distinction is that Youtube has depended on unlicensed copyrighted materials. For stuff you or I make with our video cameras, we have the power to license it to whomever we want... unless it contains somebody else's copyrighted material, like a song playing in the background, or a TV show on a screen in the frame...
Well, there is no independent exclusive right to "use" code that is licensable under copyright law. The relevant copyright rights are to copy, distribute, publicly display, and to make derivative works. Language about a license to "use" is an invitation to litigation over its validity. Despite the fact that such language is a common meme, its basis in the law is tenuous.
Well, initiating a lawsuit shouldn't be beyond the ability or budget of anybody here. Depends on your state, but some places you can file a "Writ of Summons" that lets the other party know you've got beef with them, and open the door to discovery for you, without having to draft a proper legal complaint. The pre-complaint discovery is to help you draft the complaint... If the form for the Writ wants the gist of your action, the magic word here is "nuisance". Serve the grumpy old geezer with a Writ, and then serve him with interrogatories asking all kinds of information about the device, where he purchased it, when he installed it, why he installed it, what its specs are, etc... . If he ignores them, then pay a lawyer to argue for sanctions for contempt of court for his disobedience of the order to answer them that comes with the interrogatories. Where I am, you're looking at a total bill of maybe $500 at that point, and most of that is paying the lawyer to put the screws to him. If the lawyer is good, you might get attorney's fees assessed against the grumpy old guy too, so you costs just went way down again.
Hear Hear! A requirement like this, so long as the kids are actually taught what copyright law is all about, will likely scare them quite a bit. Copyright is a pretty extreme statute when you think about what it says. Some highlights for the syllabus: 1) Anything with a tiny spark of creativity in it is automatically copyrighted at the moment it is fixed (e.g. written down, saved, recorded, etc.) 2) Nobody needs to give notice to anybody else that a work is copyrighted. 3) If anybody makes a copy of a copyrighted work that has been registered (cost: peanuts), they can get stuck with paying the legal fees for the person suing them. 4) Fair use is only a defense if the judge in your particular case thinks it is. 5) Every time you use a photocopier, you are probably infringing on a registered copyright, and could be hit with a judgment for $150,000 for each copyrighted work you copied. Think it's fair use? You have to get a court to agree with you. 6) Copyright extends generations beyond the death of the author. 7) Copyrights are almost always taken by publishers in return for publishing works by authors, and royalties are paid according to the publisher's accounting system, which may or may not reflect reality. If kids learn this stuff, they'll be much more educated voters than the folks casting ballots now who can't tell a copyright from a trademark from a hole in the ground. Educated voters might just get this legal insanity changed.
Great analysis. This is stupid half-thought-through security theater. I wonder what numbskull consultant gave them that idea, and how many thousands of dollars the company spent for it...
Since each contributor to the kernel doesn't sign away the copyright to a central holding entity, keeping track of who has a copyright interest in the kernel to license is tough enough... now RMS is demanding the contributors opt between v2 and v3? Nuts.
Even if this is a short range technology, it sounds like it could do away with just about every cable connection going into the back of my desktop box except the power cord. Let it be super Bluetooth... that would be great!
Well, being able to get all of the google searches somebody performed in a certain time frame would be useful to lots more than just divorce lawyers... There are plenty of legal matters where "intent" is a factor... for example, in some states the tort of civil conspiracy requires proof of "malice". Search records, and more general net usage records could go a long way toward proving malice or other states of mind. Since lawyers are required to be zealous in their representation of their clients, subpoening this stuff is going to become much more common once it gets onto lawyers's radar.
The defendant knowing nothing about p2p or computer networks should have no bearing on the arguments his lawyer makes in presenting a defense. Sure, you don't call the defendant as an expert on network security, but it is entirely consistent that the def knows nothing about computer networks or p2p and raises a wireless hijacking defense through a skillful lawyer.