"It essentially shuts down any competitor's add-on innovation that customers could enjoy with their legitimately purchased products. Add-on innovation is one of the hottest areas of creativity and economic growth right now in software, and this decision will slow investment and development in that field."
"Corporations have wielded the DMCA to censor magazines,
academic researchers, and competitors," said EFF Senior
Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "Now
Vivendi is using the DMCA to threaten customers who simply
want to improve the gaming environment for a product
they've purchased legitimately."
designed to protect the fixed expression or manifestation of an idea rather than the fundamental idea itself.
Copyright therefore may not subsist in the idea of a man venturing out on a quest, but may subsist in a particular story which follows that pattern.
Critics of the this so-called dichotomy point out that in many cases, the "expression" and the "idea" are both intangible ideas, and the nature of any such "expression" is inherently subjective.
For example, in the case of the adventure story cited above, one judge might rule that changing the names, quest items, and personal habits of all the characters in the story is perhaps enough to create a distinct "expression"; other judges might rule that the two story ideas are essentially "the same", and do not have distinct "expressions".
"I visit a torrent site weekly to download this week's episode of my two favorite tv shows, House M.D. and The Apprentice. I work on the nights that both shows air on national tv, so I download a torrent file of each. To me, this is no different that setting the VCR to record something while I'm at work... but the benefit with a torrent file is that it takes up a lot less space than a video tape. I received a letter from my cable internet provider, who was contacted by NBC Universal saying that they'd tracked illegal downloading of a HOUSE MD file. It was a 'cease and desist' letter notifying me that, essentially, NBC was 'on' to me, and if they so chose, they could take me to court for pirating copyrighted material."
BitTorrent accounted for 53 percent of all P2P Internet traffic in June of 2004.
P2P traffic accounts for two-thirds of the traffic on the 'Net
the Copyright Cartel is not going after the technology or the hosting companies. It is targeting Web site owners who have links on their sites to copyrighted material it is illegal for them to offer.
BitTorrent is just a transport protocol like HTTP.
development of the INDUCE act in the US. This onerous piece of legislation has the intent to outlaw any technologies that might be used for the purpose of illegal copying.
Despite offers from the bnetd developers to integrate Blizzard's CD key checking system into bnetd, Blizzard claims that the public availability of any such software package facilitates piracy, and moved to have the bnetd project shut down under provisions of the DMCA.[citation needed] As this case is one of the first major test cases for the DMCA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation became involved, for a while negotiations were ongoing to resolve the case without a trial. The negotiations failed however, and Blizzard won the case on all counts: the defendants were ruled to have breached both StarCraft's End User License Agreement (EULA) and the Terms of Use of Battle.net.
"Whereas Printers, Booksellers, and other Persons, have of late frequently taken the Liberty of Printing... Books, and other Writings, without the Consent of the Authors... to their very great Detriment, and too often to the Ruin of them and their Families:..."[1]
The formulas, concepts, and ideas which are the basis of the medicines, software and entertainment that affect our everyday lives require the same set of standard protections guaranteed physical property.
A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
“Copyright owner”, with respect to any one of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, refers to the owner of that particular right.
A work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.
“Literary works” are works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are embodied.
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
According to EFF, the initial copyright term was triggered when Guthrie sold his first versions of the song as sheet music in 1945. The copyright on the song then ran out when Ludlow failed to renew its registration in 1973. Ludlow believes its copyright -- initially filed in 1956 and renewed in 1984 -- remains valid and disputes EFF's claims.
The idea of copyright law is that, after a time, every work comes back into the hands of the public, where it can be reused, recycled, made part of new creativity without having to pay a fee or call in the lawyers. That's a great thing, the real genius of copyright.
JibJab dismissed its suit against Ludlow today. As part of the settlement of the case, JibJab will remain free to continue distributing the "This Land" animation without further interference from Ludlow.
In May, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a
preliminary injunction barring Google Inc. from displaying thumbnail
versions of photographs found on an adult-oriented Web site, reasoning
that the Web site owner was unlikely to overcome Google's fair use
defense. Perfect 10 Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th
Cir. 2007).
Jeffrey P. Cunard, of Debevoise & Plimpton, Washington, D.C.,
>
termed secondary liability a “leaping mess,” which he
>
attributed to an effort on the part of the courts to erode the
>
Sony-Betamax
>
prescription for secondary liability, and not have
>
it apply in a digital era.
> In Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios
Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), the U.S. Supreme Court held that if a
technology is “capable of substantial noninfringing uses,”
the manufacturer of that technology cannot be liable for the
infringing acts of users.
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios
>
Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.
>
, 125 S.Ct. 2764, 33 Med.L.Rptr. 1865 (2005)
>
Grokster
>
defendants had taken affirmative steps to foster
>
infringement.
>
the court emphasized that facilitating a payment is peripheral to the
>
actual infringement, which is the unauthorized distribution of a
>
copyrighted work.
>
Perfect 10 Inc. v. Visa International Service
>
Association,
>
494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)
>
the key issue in secondary liability is the business model.
copyright law is out of sync
with developments in technology.
statutory damages for secondary
liability should be written out of the Copyright
Act.
dramatic growth in
online advertising and new business models will continue to shape the
legal landscape, and predicted, in particular, an explosion in legal
issues related to social networking.
transformative nature of the thumbnails Google created, which, by facilitating the public’s ability to search the web for images, serve a different purpose than the original images, which are designed to entertain.
Google does not store the images contained on such third party web pages in its cache. Rather, all that these cached copies contain are html instructions setting forth the location on the internet where the image can be found
the Copyright Act, unlike the Trademark Act, does not protect a copyright holder against acts that cause consumer confusion.
Perfect 10 claimed that by assisting users in locating and obtaining access to third party sites that themselves contained infringing images, Google was guilty of contributory infringement.
Said the Ninth Circuit: “Google’s failure to change it operations to avoid assisting websites to distribute their infringing content may constitute contributory liability …”.
The District Court was also directed to determine whether Google was immunized from liability for such contributory infringement claims by operation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). The DMCA immunizes Service Providers such as Google from liability “for infringement [including contributory infringement] of copyright by reason of the provider referring or linking users to an online location containing infringing material or infringing activity, by using information location tools, including a directory, index, reference, pointer or hypertext link,” if the service provider meets certain specified criteria. The parties disputed whether Google in fact met such criteria, and qualified for the protections of the DMCA. This issue was left to the District Court on remand.
Google had no contractual or other right to cause such third party websites to stop displaying infringing content. As such, the Ninth Circuit held, Perfect 10’s vicarious copyright infringement claims were likely to fail.
only delivered html instructions – to wit in-line links – to its users, and not the actual images themselves
a user’s act of “caching” copies of infringing images in his computer as part of his review of such infringing materials was a fair use protected from claims of copyright infringement.
We do not deal with the question of copying
by an individual, for personal use in research or otherwise (not for resale),
recognizing that under the fair use doctrine or the de minimis doctrine,
such a practice by an individual might well not constitute an infringement.
In other words, our opinion does not decide the case that would arise if Chickering
were a professor or an independent scientist engaged in copying and creating
files for independent research, as opposed to being employed by an institution
in the pursuit of his research on the institution's behalf.
Yesterday the world’s third largest record company, EMI, announced that it would begin selling music from its artists as digital downloads without any kind of Digital Rights Management (DRM) or copy restrictions. The songs will have a higher sound quality than your typical iTunes download, but will cost $1.29 instead of the usual $.99. The company made the decision after hearing numerous complaints from its consumers that they preferred having format-less music that could be listened to on any computer or any device, using a multitude of programs.