Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score 1) 282

Your two statements are contradictory.

They're not. Holding a copyright on a work does not confer one with complete authority as to how that work may be used. The rights which comprise copyright are relatively few; further, they are themselves limited in a number of respects.

For example, copyright on a book does not include a right to prohibit other people from reading the book. The list of exclusive rights that together form a copyright can mostly be found at 17 USC 106. (Again, only for the purposes of US copyright law; I have no idea about foreign copyright law, and I don't care to)

And posting a picture on your website doesn't tell or demonstrate anything.

The conduct of doing so, assuming a website open to the public, is an implicit license to anyone to access and view it (and to make incidental copies in the process of doing so).

If I happen to know that the Mona Lisa hangs in the Louvre, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see it. And if I happen to know the URL of your picture, there's nothing wrong with my telling people to go there to see your picture; this is so whether I provide people with a link to be manually followed, or an embedded link to be automatically followed such that the picture appears in the web page. I'm not copying it onto my website or anything.

First sale is not profiting in a commercial sense.

It is absolutely that. A used book store will sell copies of works for a profit, because it is a commercial enterprise. It is totally reliant on the first sale doctrine. Ditto however many independent video stores still exist (since it's perfectly legal to rent lawfully made copies of movies that you own).

Commercial use is not fair use.

Well, where the hell were you when the Supreme Court needed your input in 1994 in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music?

There the Court not only found that a commercial use certainly could be a fair use, they even said that it is wrong to treat a commercial use as being presumptively unfair. Commerciality is just an element to be considered, and that's all:

If, indeed, commerciality carried presumptive force against a finding of fairness, the presumption would swallow nearly all of the illustrative uses listed in the preamble paragraph of  107, including news reporting, comment, criticism, teaching, scholarship, and research, since these activities "are generally conducted for profit in this country." Harper & Row, supra, at 592 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Congress could not have intended such a rule, which certainly is not inferable from the common-law cases, arising as they did from the world of letters in which Samuel Johnson could pronounce that "[n]o man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." 3 Boswell's Life of Johnson 19 (G. Hill ed. 1934).

But then I guess you already knew everything you wrong was wrong since you fell the need to try and make your point using an insult.

'Everything you wrong was wrong?' What the hell is that?

Anyway, I called you an idiot because you're clearly an idiot. It had nothing to do with my actual argument. But my advice to you is that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, at least within the context of US copyright law, and you would do yourself, and everyone else a great service if you'd shut the fuck up and learn something from a legitimate, neutral source before you next presume to talk about it.

Comment Re:Unity on Slashdot? (Score 3, Informative) 282

You still retain all rights to decide how people may use that photo.

No, you still retain whatever rights you had. You certainly don't have complete authority to decide how other people may use it. So long as other people use it in a manner which doesn't infringe on your copyright, you can't control them at all, in fact.

At no time does making something publicly available give a 3rd party ability to profit from it.

It does for first sale. It does for fair use, if the particular use happens to qualify (commercial uses are fully able to be fair uses). There's a number of other exceptions that can apply as well. For example, if you release a record, other people can record and sell cover versions of it, and the whole intent of this was to allow third parties the ability to profit without the permission of the copyright holder.

This sounds like a perfectly ordinary copyright ruling

In fact, this is an asinine ruling. The court got it right before, when it found that linking to a file which had been put up with authorization was not infringing (which the exact thing you've been claiming was infringing, idiot). Here, the difference was that the underlying files had been put up in an infringing manner. But, rather than tell the rights holder to go after the actual wrong-doer who put them up to begin with, they decided to shift liability to third parties who were not responsible for the underlying infringement. It's very reminiscent of the stupid 'right to be forgotten' cases, in that it tries to sweep things under the carpet by imposing liability on the wrong parties just because they're more convenient.

Comment Re:Well, I thought we had settled this (Score 1) 282

Commercial use is, and it always has been too. This isn't anything surprising to anyone who's done as much as first year of lawschool. There's a big difference between publishing content, even distributing it widely, and making a profit of the said content.

I have no idea about European copyright law, nor do I care, but in the US, there's not any significant difference.

Infringement is essentially any infringement of the rights granted to authors in section 106, which are subject to various exceptions and limitations.

Prima facie infringement makes no distinction between commercial and non-commercial use. That may be relevant in computing damages, but often isn't. A few of the exceptions to copyright may apply in certain circumstances that include non-commercial use, but others apply in any kind of use.

Since no one in the US studies copyright law in their first year of law school, I wouldn't worry too much about what some 1L thinks.

Also I think your hypo with the photograph is wrong. First, 'embedding' is not a right of the copyright holder. Copying is, but in the case of embedding, the Coca-Cola company has not engaged in copying; only you and the end user have. Distribution is, but in the case of embedding, they're not distributing anything; you are, if anyone is. Public display is your best bet, but again, they're not the ones displaying it, you are. Your problem is that you have set up your server to accept requests from users who are not viewing your site, but who may be viewing some other site that is embedding an image from you. That's your fault, and within your control. Your failure to prevent it can be viewed as an implicit license for users to view that material, which kills any argument at direct, and therefore secondary, infringement.

As for the model release, that's a whole different kettle of fish, but certainly wouldn't come back against you.

Comment Re:Fair use (Score 1) 172

It would be fair use only if used infrequently. For example, if you want to quote someone else's article in your article, that's fair use. However, if your entire business is dependent upon making snippets from thousands of articles, that's no longer fair use, it's commercial use.

No, you're wrong.

First, fair use applies to both commercial and non-commercial uses. For example, when Mad Magazine did a movie parody, that would be fair use, even though the magazine us sold for an increasing cheap price and is a commercial venture.

Second, the previous poster didn't really explain it well. Fair use is when a copyrighted work is used without permission in a way that, but for fair use, would be infringing, but which is not infringing because it is in the general purpose of copyright to allow such a use. It's evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and is completely fact dependent. This, any particular use might be a fair use, but not just any use actually is.

There's a test for finding out whether a use is fair or not. It has four factors, though it isn't a matter of adding up how many factors go one way or another, and depending on the case, one factor might be treated as outweighing another. Plus, it's just a tool; other factors can be considered too.

The factors are: 1) the purpose and character of the use, such as whether the use is for profit or not, whether the use would advance the progress of knowledge by resulting in something new or otherwise helpful; 2) the nature of the work being used, such as whether it is fictional and therefore very creative and worth protecting, or factual, and therefore not worth protecting quite so much (how a work presents itself is also often relevant in copyright; if you claim that something is a fact, even though it's made up or is just a hypothesis, others may get to treat it as a fact) as well as whether the work being used has already been published or not; 3) the amount of the work used, and how important to the work that portion is; and 4) whether the use will have a negative effect on the value or market for the work (positive effects are not considered).

Snippets of this type -- in aggregate, mind you -- have repeatedly been found to be fair use in the US because for the first factor, although the use is commercial in nature, it provides a benefit to society in being able to search for this material (which of course requires as much material as possible to be used in constructing the index, even though the index itself, as opposed to the results of a search, is not made available), the second factor may weigh against the use depending on the material being indexed, but it is not treated as being very important, obviously the whole work must be used to make the index for the index to be useful, so the third factor doesn't matter, and for the fourth factor, it doesn't harm the market for news articles to be able to find them and to see in one or two lines why they match your search terms. It doesn't matter if that's the business model.

And if you think this is extreme, look at time shifting, which is bad on all of the first three factors, but is sufficiently successful on the fourth so as to be fair use (in a general way, since again it is highly fact dependent)

Comment Re:spin (Score 1) 211

Which is the point where you've broken copyright law. Photocopying books is, well, copying them.

Unless you're engaged in a fair use (or fall under certain other exceptions), in which case the copying is perfectly legal under copyright law. Which turns out to have been the case here.

And thanks to Google clearing the trail, it'll be easier for others to do the same thing, if they're inclined.

Comment Re:spin (Score 1) 211

They don't have an exclusive right to scan in books. First, because such a right could only be granted by either copyright holders, as an exclusive license (which would also necessarily mean that scanning the licensed book was not infringing) which wouldn't matter to rivals because the rivals can ignore such a license and rely on fair use per the lower court's decision. Second, because the only other way to have an exclusive would be if there were literally only one copy in existence and the library that owned the copy refused to grant access to anyone else, and that is frankly, pretty unlikely.

The reason that they may have an effective exclusive is simply that it's an expensive pain in the ass to scan all of this stuff in, and there's little money in it, so who else would want to bother. But the disinclination of third parties to compete with Google because it's hard, likely minimally profitable work, is hardly Google's fault.

The point is, they took on a project that violated copyright on a massive scale. They want to claim that it's fair use

No they didn't. Fair use is by definition not a violation of copyright. And so far this has been determined to be fair use, and with the Supreme Court refusing to take up the case, there should be nothing else to say about it.

I think it's only fair the LoC get a full copy of their book index.

That would be nice, but they're under no obligation to give a copy to the Library of Congress if they don't want to.

Frankly, I think its good that such a thing exist in society. But it's not good that a private for-profit company can take it on themselves to do that for their own gain.

Why not? Certainly the government should be doing this sort of thing; as an attorney it always bothers me that there's no public alternative to Lexis and Westlaw. But that the government could do it and should do it doesn't preclude private entities from doing it too, as a general rule.

For instance, the government builds most roads. But nothing stops a private company from building a private, for-profit highway, so long as they can get the land without government assistance and afford to build a safe roadway on it which complies with various regulations. It's just such a hassle that it's rare.

Honestly, it's strange that laws suddenly stopped applying because it was on a computer.

Copyright law applies. Google simply hasn't acted illegally is all. Google books is no different than if someone made analog xeroxes of lots of books, manually compiled a master index of everything in them, and took requests by phone to tell people what books matched various search terms (possibly with a specific sentence or passage read aloud over the phone to lend context to the result).

Computers make this practical, not legal.

Comment Re:spin (Score 1) 211

Suppose an author hated a book they had written earlier. It would be impossible for them to buy and destroy every copy.

Screw 'em.

Competitors who would have to reproduce the electronic archiving, as opposed to having the LoC owning the electronic copies and people competing on search algorithms.

Oh, that's just stupid. I doubt Google has an exclusive that would prevent people from surmounting the same natural barrier to entry. And if the government did scan everything in and make its scans available to third party search engines, that certainly wouldn't prohibit anyone else from doing their own scans either. It would just be a government subsidy of book searching. Perhaps that would be good, but it's not a valid criticism of Google Books.

Comment Re:Dissolve the Berne Convention (Score 1) 211

Creative works are copyrighted by default. The author/artist does not need to take any action for their work to be protected.

Yes, and that's a colossally stupid idea. Copyrights should only be available where authors take action to get them, and only persist where authors regularly take action to maintain them.

This is probably what the earlier poster was complaining about, and I suspect you took him too literally.

Comment Re:Dissolve the Berne Convention (Score 1) 211

something that you didn't create, thus implying it is copyrighted until you can show otherwise

That's a big part of the problem which the earlier poster was alluding to. Works should never be copyrighted unless the copyright is specifically requested by the author, through a registration process that includes placing copyright notices and registration numbers on the work to facilitate checking their copyright status.

This is no great burden for authors, who will either comply if they want copyrights, or ignore it and let their works enter the public domain immediately (indicating that they didn't care about the copyright to begin with). On the other hand, it would be greatly beneficial to the public, who would no longer have to assume that everything is copyrighted until they can prove otherwise.

A requirement to maintain up-to-date information in the registry, lest the copyright be lost, would also help with the orphan works problem you mentioned.

Comment Re:Short-term benefit? (Score 1) 211

As someone else said, this is just Google being greedy - they could have come up with some sort of agreement with the authors that allowed them to do it via a subscription service, or such. Instead, they decided to give away someone else's work for free.

Actually, no, they couldn't. The transactional costs would be so great that neither Google, nor anyone else, would be willing to bother. Plus there would be authors who would refuse to participate, or who would balkanize the market with exclusive arrangements, much as we're seeing with music and video.

It's too knotty a problem to solve, other than by cutting right through.

Comment Re:Short-term benefit? (Score 1) 211

Perhaps being able to search google's scanned books should be a subscription service with some portion of that subscription payment going back to the authors of the books you looked at.

Then probably no one would use it very much. Plus of course, copyright doesn't include a right to information about a work, and that, fundamentally, is what Google Books is: it tells you that a given search term appears in a book. The snippet is just icing on the cake, very similar to the thumbnails in image searches, or the snippets on Google's web search results pages. They provide useful context and the ability to verify that the match is not a false match, but that's about it for most of them.

Or perhaps it should be nationalized into a public library system and we pay taxes into it that go back to the authors.

I have no problem with the Library of Congress or other public libraries offering similar services. I wouldn't pay authors though; it's not necessary and seems like a waste.

I'm just not sure a system that benefits you and google but not the authors is the best solution to the problem here.

The important thing is that it benefits him, and you, and me, and the general public. Copyright isn't meant to provide a benefit to authors, except where doing so is in the interests of the public.

Comment Re:Maybe now ebooks will be cheaper then paper? (Score 2) 84

Back on dead-tree, you owned the medium but licensed the content

No, you're wrong.

The way it works is that copies (i.e. tangible media in which a work can be fixed, such as paperbacks, hard drives, or flash memory) are ordinary personal property. Creative works (i.e. intangible stories or pictures, separate from the media that contain them) are not any kind of property at all. And in order to create an approximation of what it would be like if creative works were even capable of being property, we may grant copyrights pertaining to those works, which limit what people can do with them or copies containing them. However, copyrights are really quite limited themselves, and only prohibit a few (admittedly desirable) things that can be done with works or copies thereof. Mostly they prohibit people from fixing the works into more copies, from distributing copies containing the works, from preparing new works derived from preexisting works, and from publicly performing or displaying certain works.

The other important thing to understand is that a license is fundamentally just a promise not to sue someone. If Alice and Bob are neighbors, Alice doesn't need a license from Bob in order to go into her own home, eat her own food for dinner, and sleep in her own bed. However, Alice needs some form of permission from Bob (or an applicable exception) to go into Bob's home, eat Bob's food, or sleep in Bob's bed.

So the way this all works is, copyright does not apply to the mere ownership of a work or a copy, or to the mere use of a work or a copy. If you legitimately own a copy of a work (i.e. the paperback), the copyright does not prohibit you from owning it just because it has a work in it, and does not prohibit you from using that work, e.g. by reading it. Since the copyright holder can't stop you, he has no ability to grant you a license; he might as well grant you a license to breathe air.

This doesn't mean that you own the copyright. Nor does it mean that you own the work, since no one can own that. It just means that owning a copy automatically brought along the right to read that copy more as a consequence of personal property law and the right of free speech.

If you wanted to make a new copy, however, that would infringe on the copyright, if there is one. Ownership of a copy does not automatically confer the copyright.

The basis for claiming that e-books are licensed really has to do with a way in which they are unlike printed books. Basically, it's that in order to get one, you have to download it, which involves fixing it into some storage medium, and therefore making a new copy, which is something that copyright does prohibit, and therefore requires a license or exception in the law. OTOH, if you went to the bookstore and could buy a pre-written flash card with the book on it, and slot that into your reader, you wouldn't need a license, and it would work fine as a simple sale transaction.

The idea of end-user licensing really didn't start at all until the late 1970's with software, and it has been totally unnecessary there for over 30 years. But it's quite favorable for the developers and publishers, so they keep pushing that model and sadly it's spreading.

Comment Re:SCOTUS unanimously says otherwise, Congress (Score 1) 228

That list looks familiar. You may not like the list, but it's the list that Congress put in the law. The list isn't comprehensive, but it is law - statutory federal law.

Yes, I know what you were referring to. My dislike for the list has nothing to do with what is and isn't in it; I dislike it because it section 107 is worded in a rather confusing way, and it often trips people up.

What it actually says, rearranged for clarity is:

[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright.

[To aid in the determination of] whether [a particular use] is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

[If the use is determined to be a fair use, by] consideration of all of the above factors[, it is irrelevant that the work] is unpublished.

[By implication, courts are free to also consider other factors to aid in the determination.]

[Although it is tautological to say it, fair use] for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research[, is ultimately fair use, and thus not infringing as per the above. However, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research which are not fair use, may be infringing.]

Thus, the list is bogus. It confuses people into wrongly thinking that the only uses which are fair are the ones on the list, and that if the use is on the list, it must be fair. Neither is true. They're just examples of things that might be fair use, or might not be fair use, depending on circumstances.

Unanimous SCOTUS opinion in Campbell vs Acuff-Rose "fair use is an affirmative defense".

And IIRC, that was not relevant to the case, which was actually about whether uses may be presumptively unfair, which the Court found was not so. Essentially it's dicta, and Harper & Row is even more so, as there was no mention of whether it was an affirmative defense until the opinion, and it too was not relevant to the case, which dealt with whether any of the uses on the list were presumptively fair, which the Court also found not to be so. In fact, I'd say that it's completely built on sand: The only mention of it being an affirmative defense comes from a cite to a 1967 House Report, which merely says that the pre-codification form of fair use was historically often raised as a defense. The report then goes on to say that it would be wrong to place the burden of proving fair use on either side, which directly undercuts the idea of it being an affirmative defense which must be raised by the defendant or else waived.

The better case to look at is Sony:

Moreover, the definition of exclusive rights in section 106 of the present Act is prefaced by the words "subject to sections 107 through 118." Those sections describe a variety of uses of copyrighted material that "are not infringements of copyright" "notwithstanding the provisions of section 106." The most pertinent in this case is section 107, the legislative endorsement of the doctrine of "fair use."

Indeed, the statute itself is the best support for the status of fair use as not being an affirmative defense: The grant of copyright itself in section 106 is limited in scope so as not to cover the territory taken out of copyright by section 107, among others. Although for reasons of judicial economy, there's no reason to even bother with fair use unless a prima facie infringement can be shown, the statute clearly states that fair uses cannot possibly be infringing, as the copyright just does not extend that far; there's no mention of whether it has to be shown or not. Hell, 17 USC 108(f)(4) actually refers to "the right of fair use as provided by section 107."

Happily, we're beginning to see some success in fixing the mistake perpatrated by Harper & Row and Campbell, with cases such as Lenz v. Universal Music. There's still a long way to go, but it's a start.

think you'll find that I don't shoot my mouth off without knowing what I'm talking about. When I say "the law is ...", I'm probably quoting either the statute or SCOTUS.

Even SCOTUS gets the law wrong with alarming frequency. It's a bad idea to treat what they say as gospel, and even they know this. My favorite example is from Lawrence v. Texas, where they said of their previous decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today."

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.