Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

956899 Posts in 63162 Topics- by 15438 Members - Latest Member: TrombonePatrick
Jump to:  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: copyrights  (Read 41830 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42907
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: Sep 06, 2008, 07:54PM »

...

The more I read about copyright, the more confused I become.


This is what keeps Intellectual Property Lawyers in business. ;-)
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: Aug 24, 2011, 04:13PM »

have fun reading

or you could pay an attorney specializing in copyright law, I guess.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-would-help-combat-copyright-offenders-on-the-internet/2011/08/23/gIQA3SYdbJ_story.html

Quote
Editorial Board Opinion

Bill would help combat copyright offenders on the Internet

The Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act, introduced by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, would give the government and copyright- and trademark-holders a means to combat this problem. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) is expected to introduce a House version once Congress returns next month.

The proposal would allow the Justice Department or a private rights holder to move against a rogue foreign Web site by convincing a federal judge that the site is “dedicated to” and has “no significant use” other than copyright or trademark infringement. Defendant Web sites would have the right to contest the allegation. An otherwise legitimate site that may have sold a product that turned out to be a fake or unknowingly linked to or posted an item to which it did not have the rights would be spared legal action. . . .

Some U.S. Internet businesses and open Internet advocates worry that the Protect IP Act could choke off legitimate speech by authorizing the demise of entire Web sites, rather than specific content. They point to the effectiveness of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires Web site owners to take down individual pieces of pirated content after a copyright holder complains. But what if the Web site is a consistent scofflaw? . . .

here is the text of the proposed bill:

http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf


 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/hr2281.pdf
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: Jan 15, 2012, 04:48AM »

update on efforts to redo the proposed law

looks like a start over

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html?ref=us

Quote
The Obama administration said Saturday that it strongly opposed central elements of two Congressional efforts to enforce copyrights on the Internet, all but killing the current versions of legislation that has divided both political parties and pitted Hollywood against Silicon Valley. 

The comments by the administration’s chief technology officials, posted on a White House blog Saturday,

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy

Quote
The White House has responded to two petitions about legislative approaches to combat online piracy. In their response, Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff stress that the important task of protecting intellectual property online must not threaten an open and innovative internet. . . .

more from the NY Times:

Quote
came as growing opposition to the legislation had already led sponsors of the bills to reconsider a measure that would force Internet service providers to block access to Web sites that offer or link to copyrighted material.

“Let us be clear,” the White House statement said, “online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs.”

However, it added, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

The bills currently under consideration in Congress were intended to combat the theft of copyrighted materials by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites that allow for the distribution of stolen materials. They would cut off payment processors like PayPal that handle transactions.

The bills would also allow private citizens and companies to sue to stop what they believed to be theft of protected content. Those and other provisions set off fierce opposition among Internet companies, technology investors and free speech advocates, who said the bills would stifle online innovation, violate the First Amendment and even compromise national security by undermining the integrity of the Internet’s naming system.

Though the Obama administration called for legislation this year that would give prosecutors and owners of intellectual property new abilities to deter overseas piracy, it also embraced the idea of “voluntary measures and best practices” to reduce piracy. . . .
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42907
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: Jan 15, 2012, 05:59AM »

The problem with online copyrights is that we have a problem and the folks trying to "fix" the problem are going after the wrong people.  It sorta reminds me of the approach to election fraud: we have problems with election fraud so we attack one small (possibly insignificant) part of it: certifying voters.

The 600 pound gorilla in the room are the counterfeiters.  These guys have no compunction of making thousands of copies of digital media and selling it at a lower price; the profits go entirely to the counterfeiters, most of whom are not in the US and hence out of reach of law enforcement.

There is a 400 pound gorilla as well.  It is the file share sites.  These are now also not in the US and hence beyond the reach of the law.

So now we have the people who are being aggrieved going after the one thing they can.  We have some copyrighted material being put on YouTube, Wikipedia, and other such sites.  And these people are not happy to just have the material removed; they want to take down the sites entirely.  This is misguided.  YouTube has removed copyrighted material when requested.  This should be sufficient.  Same goes for other ethical sites.  This is what upsets the "Free Internet" folks.

I don't know the solution to the counterfeits.  We have a similar problem in Electronics, but with more serious consequences: many counterfeit parts don't work as well as the real ones (if they work at all) and this can be a serious problem with things like medical equipment and armaments.  As long as there are amoral people there will be counterfeits.  There probably should be an international agreement that is enforced (the Chinese have anti-counterfeit laws but the stuff coming out of there indicates that they don't enforce them).
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: Jan 18, 2012, 03:46AM »

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm?iid=Lead


Quote
SOPA explained: What it is and why it matters

 . . . What is SOPA? SOPA is an acronym for the Stop Online Piracy Act. It's a proposed bill that aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host pirated content.

SOPA's main targets are "rogue" overseas sites like torrent hub The Pirate Bay, which are a trove for illegal downloads of movies and other digital content.

Content creators have battled against piracy for years -- remember Napster? -- but it's hard for U.S. companies to take action against foreign sites. So SOPA's goal is to cut off pirate sites' oxygen by requiring U.S. search engines, advertising networks and other providers to withhold their services.

That means sites like Google wouldn't show flagged sites in their search results, and payment processors like eBay's (EBAY, Fortune 500) PayPal couldn't transmit funds to them.

Both sides say they agree that protecting content is a worthy goal. But opponents say that the way SOPA is written effectively promotes censorship and is rife with the potential for unintended consequences.

Silicon Valley woke up and took notice of the implications when SOPA was introduced in the House of Representatives in October. But its very similar counterpart, PIPA, flew under the radar and was approved by a Senate committee in May. PIPA is now pending before the full Senate and scheduled for a vote on January 24, though some senators are pushing for a delay.

Isn't copyright infringement already illegal? Yes. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out enforcement measures. . . .
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42907
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: Jan 18, 2012, 05:59AM »

This seems to be getting more and more like the "fight" against pornography or the "war" on drugs.

These things would dry up and blow away in the wind if the demand was not there.

Why do people want to use these sites?  Because they perceive that the prices for the legitimate items are excessive.  If the legitimate cost for something was perceived to be correct most people would gladly pay the tariff and be done with it.

It might be that some products don't properly explain why their prices are what they are.

But when we have folks like Bill Gates amassing huge fortunes because the OS or the Office apps go for between $200 and $500 a copy, the perception is that we are paying for a lot more than his real costs.  Hence people go to pirate sites to avoid what they perceive as excessive profit taking.

There aren't too many people in this thing whose hands are really clean.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
HouBassTrombone

*
Offline Offline

Location: Houston, TX
Joined: Nov 19, 2008
Posts: 1982
"Just play because you love to."


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: Jan 18, 2012, 08:01PM »

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
Wow....
Logged

Why am I not practicing?????
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 42907
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: Jan 18, 2012, 08:19PM »

Nothing new here.  There is an International Copyright that is much more comprehensive than the US copyright and the Supremes are simply saying that we should adhere to the foreign model.

We had another time just before Congress passed the first Disney Relief Act (copyright extension) where a number of works from the 1920s and 1930s suddenly had passed their 56 year limit and reverted to Public Domain.  Then they reverted to copyright because of the first extension.  We have a couple of works in our library that we got during that "magic" period that if we lost we could never recover (they will probably remain under copyright as long as Walt Disney Enterprises remains in business).
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Section Ldr, Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch.
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: Jan 19, 2012, 01:30AM »


here is the link to the text of most recent USSC decision on copyright issues which is referred to by HBT:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf

Golan v. Holder

Quote
. . . Petitioners are orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works §514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that Congress, in passing §514,exceeded its authority under the Copyright Clause and transgressed First Amendment limitations.

The District Court granted the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment. Affirming in part, theTenth Circuit agreed that Congress had not offended the Copyright Clause, but concluded that §514 required further First Amendmentinspection in light of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186.

On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners on the First Amendment claim, holding that §514’s constriction of the publicd omain was not justified by any of the asserted federal interests.

The Tenth Circuit reversed, ruling that §514 was narrowly tailored to fitthe important government aim of protecting U. S. copyright holders’ interests abroad.

Held:

1. Section 514 does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. Pp. 13–23.
(a) The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude applicationof copyright protection to works in the public domain. Eldred is largely dispositive of petitioners’ claim that the Clause’s confinementof a copyright’s lifespan to a “limited Tim[e]” prevents the removal ofworks from the public domain. In Eldred, the Court upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights. The text of the Copyright Clause, theCourt observed, contains no “command that a time prescription, onceset, becomes forever ‘fixed’ or ‘inalterable,’ ” and the Court declined to infer any such command. 537 U. S., at 199. The construction petitioners tender here is similarly infirm. The terms afforded works restored by §514 are no less “limited” than those the CTEA lengthened. Nor had the “limited Tim[e]” already passed for the works at issuehere—many of them works formerly denied any U. S. copyright protection—for a period of exclusivity must begin before it may end. Petitioners also urge that the Government’s position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive“limited” terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case. In aligning theUnited States with other nations bound by Berne, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a perpetual copyright regime. Pp. 13–15.

(b)
Historical practice corroborates the Court’s reading of the Copyright Clause to permit the protection of previously unprotectedworks. In the Copyright Act of 1790, the First Congress protectedworks that had been freely reproducible under State copyright laws.Subsequent actions confirm that Congress has not understood the Copyright Clause to preclude protection for existing works. Several private bills restored the copyrights and patents of works and inventions previously in the public domain. Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting copyrights and patents to works and inventions that had lost protection. Pp. 15–19.
(c)
Petitioners also argue that §514 fails to “promote the Progress of Science” as contemplated by the initial words of the Copyright Clause. Specifically, they claim that because §514 affects only works already created, it cannot meet the Clause’s objective. The creation of new works, however, is not the sole way Congress may promote“Science,” i.e., knowledge and learning. In Eldred, this Court rejecteda nearly identical argument, concluding that the Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate toinduce new works. Rather the Clause “empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body’s judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.” 537 U. S., at 222. Nothing in the text or history of the Copyright Clause, moreover, confines the “Progress of Science” exclusively to “incentives for creation.” Historical evidence, congressional practice, and this Court’s decisions, in fact, suggest that inducing the dissemination of existingworks is an appropriate means to promote science. Pp. 20–22.
(d)
Considered against this backdrop, §514 falls comfortably within Congress’ Copyright Clause authority. Congress had reason to believe that a well-functioning international copyright system would encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. And testimony informed Congress that full compliance with Berne would expand the foreign markets available to U. S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U. S. works abroad, thus benefitting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process. This Court has no warrant to reject Congress’ rational judgment that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. Pp. 22–23.
2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration author
(a)
The pathmarking Eldred decision is again instructive. There, the Court held that the CTEA’s enlargement of a copyright’s duration did not offend the First Amendment’s freedom of expression guarantee. Recognizing that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright, the Court observed that the Framers regarded copyright protection not simply as a limiton the manner in which expressive works may be used, but also as an“engine of free expression.” 537 U. S., at 219. The “traditional contours” of copyright protection, i.e., the “idea/expression dichotomy” and the “fair use” defense, moreover, serve as “built-in First Amendment accommodations.” Ibid. Given the speech-protective purposes and safeguards embraced by copyright law, there was no call for theheightened review sought in Eldred. The Court reaches the same conclusion here. Section 514 leaves undisturbed the idea/expressiondistinction and the fair use defense. Moreover, Congress adoptedmeasures to ease the transition from a national scheme to an international copyright regime. Pp. 23–26.
(b)
Petitioners claim that First Amendment interests of a higherorder are at stake because they—unlike their Eldred counterparts—enjoyed “vested rights” in works that had already entered the publicdomain. Their contentions depend on an argument already considered and rejected, namely, that the Constitution renders the public domain largely untouchable by Congress. Nothing in the historicalrecord, subsequent congressional practice, or this Court’s jurisprudence warrants exceptional First Amendment solicitude for copyrighted works that were once in the public domain. Congress has several times adjusted copyright law to protect new categories ofworks as well as works previously in the public domain. Section 514, moreover, does not impose a blanket prohibition on public access.The question is whether would-be users of certain foreign works mustpay for their desired use of the author’s expression, or else limit their exploitation to “fair use” of those works. By fully implementingBerne, Congress ensured that these works, like domestic and mostother foreign works, would be governed by the same legal regime. Section 514 simply placed foreign works in the position they would have occupied if the current copyright regime had been in effect whenthose works were created and first published. Pp. 26–30.
609 F. 3d 1076, affirmed. . . .
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: