cornfed
Mindless lemming
Sorry Chris, but I couldn't find that in their TOS.
I said it was impolite and disrespectful.
Irvine resigns thread
- Thread starter adder70
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
- Status
Sorry Chris, but I couldn't find that in their TOS.
I said it was impolite and disrespectful.
cyklon_300
Contributor
SeaJay for lecturing NEWrecks on legal issues or the dufus who recently gave ChickDiver tips on how to get into a BP harness...
ROFL- Thanks Cyklon- I needed a giggle this morning 
Ditto...:rofL:
SeaJay
Contributor
Steve_S once bubbled...
Yes, the "el flamo" fish is propagating
Respectfully, you said: "There is no copyright law on the internet as of yet."
I beg to differ. And it's enforcable and I'm speaking from first hand knowledge and direct experience
We cal it "DMCA" and you should point your attorney to:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf
Steve:
Quoted from the text: "Title II, the 'Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act' creates limitations on the liability of online service providers for copyright infringement when engaging in certain types of activities."
This is a law which limits a plaintiff's ability to sue an ISP; not the other way around. This is not a law that allows for copyright suits... This is the opposite. It's a protective clause for an ISP so that he won't get sued.
Quoted from the text: "Title III, The Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act creates an exemption for making a copy of a a computer program by activating a computer for purposes of maintenance or repair."
While at first this might sound pertinent, this Act has nothing to do with online copyright law.
Quoted fromt he text: "Title IV contains six miscillaneous provisions relating to the functions of of the Copyright Office...the exceptions in the Copyright Act..."
This is another Act that limits the plaintiff's ability to sue; in this case, as it relates directly to libraries and in webcasting.
Title V is unrelated to the internet and online activities.
My point, Steve, is that this Act is not some sort of Act put in place so that people can sue each other for copyright infringement. It is an Act specifically LIMITING someone's ability to sue.
In other words, in the debate here, this would support MY side... Not theirs.
Furthermore, there still is nothing that says that copyright law applies online. Even if it did... The U.S. does not have juristiction over the internet... What happens when the "crime" is committed in the UK? Spain? Holland? Those servers are just as accessible to me as the ones in my NOC.
In fact, the U.S. government got so sick of hearing people like Jonnythan and NEWrecks scream about "copyright infringement" that they actually passed DMCA, limiting their ability to sue!
...So why would the government pass a law limiting copyright liability online if there was currently no law supporting the plaintiff anyway? Well... Because they fully expect to pass a law in the future regarding it. The reason that they haven't yet is because they can't figure out how to differentiate between infringement and regular surfing. Are reading these words a crime? I haven't given you permission... You don't have a license... And yet, they're cached... That is, "copied"... On your computer right now... See the problem with an online copyright law?
Steve, you say that you have "first hand experience" with being sued or suing under this Act. Respectfully, if you were sued for infringement using a law that LIMITS someone's ability to sue... There's something seriously wrong there.
According to Yahoo, they respect copyright.
Yahoo's Copyright Policy
So, your point would be..............
SeaJay:
Your parsing out sections of the DMCA without reference to the Copyright Act of 1976, Title 17 U.S.C.
What does copyright cover
Works stored electronically are sufficiently fixed to be subject to copyright.
Exclusive rights of a copyright owner
Liability for Infringement
The DMCA does not legitimize unauthorized copying. It limits the liability of ISP's; however, it does not alter the fundamental rights of authors to protect their work.
A case could be made regarding fair use. However, that is an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove. Moreover, works that are subject to a fair use defense are still protected.
Finally, the jurisdictional issues are largely irrelevant for two reasons. First, courts in the United States have jurisdiction over activities taking place within the United States or, in the case of a state court, within the state. Check out the long arm jurisdictional statutes for more information.
Second, even if jurisdiction is not proper in the U.S., the Berne Convention and other international treaties provide for cross-border recognition of copyrights. If you don't have jurisdiction over a defendant in the United States, you sue them in their home country.
This discussion started when Mr. Painter incorrectly claimed that items posted on the Internet are not entitled to copyright protection because they have entered the public domain. That statement is not correct.
Whether a fair use defense is available or whether the parties are subject to jurisdiction is an entirely different matter. However, the fact remains that it is quite possible to enforce copyright on the Internet.
If you don't believe me, call up the CEO of Napster and ask him what he thinks.
SeaJay
Contributor
I appreciate your politeness during this "debate."
Okay, read Title 17 of the United States Code and show me where it says that items posted on the Internet fall under copyright law at all.
Specifically, section 512 LIMITS a "copyright holder's" right to sue. That is the only mention of copyrights in terms of the Internet.
Please give me an example of someone successfully sued for posting a link to someone else's work.
Funny. I'm an ISP - one of the ones protected under section 512. I rely on such laws to protect me, and believe me, I'm intimately familiar with them. I'm also a student at the University of South Carolina studying law. Are you claiming to be a lawyer?
There are a few points that NEW (intentionally?) omitted from his little treatise, and which are germane to this discussion.
The first is that while you CAN sue someone for statutory (that is, not needing to be proven) damages under Copyright law, and oh, by the way, statutory damages can reach $100,000 per infringment, you must first register the work before you can do so, and that registration must pre-date the infringment.
That instantly voids statutory claims for essentially ALL postings to a mailing list, Usenet newsgroup, or BBS. The obvious exception would be an author who posted a piece (or all) of a published work that IS registered.
There are also compilation copyrights. For example, Yahoo Groups can claim a compilation copyright on the postings submitted to a discussion board, as can ScubaBoard on postings made to its system. However, that compilation copyright exists only on the collection; the individual postings themselves remain the property of the person who made them. Attempts to "attach" these as the exclusive property of a web site have been made in various board's terms of service, but to my knowledge that claim has never been tested in court, and I bet it fails if challenged on a number of grounds.
While it is also true that you have a copyright on ANYTHING you produce, notice or not, registered or not, you can only collect actual damages for an unregistered work.
Now what are "actual" damages in this case?
There is no claim of damages here, since there is no (1) commercial exploitation, and (2) the announcement relates to both a fact AND is an item of "news". In addition, there is a "fair use" exception for reporting items that are newsworthy.
SeaJay is both half right and half wrong. The case law precedent for online service providers extends back to a case called "Cubby .v. CompuServe" before the Internet was a consumer item. Essentially, the holding in that case was that so long as an online provider made no attempt to exert editorial control, they were immune from contributory copyright infringement lawsuits.
Now exactly where that line rested was not well-defined, which is part (but not all!) of why the DCMA was enacted. The other part of the DCMA's enactment was to criminalize the dissemination of technology intended to CIRCUMVENT copyright enforcement mechanisms (specifically, it was passed to try to stop the distribution of software that could break DVD encryption.) The fallacy of this legislation is, as SeaJay pointed out, that the Internet is not a US-centric thing and there is no "reach" possible in a US law to stop someone from publishing such software in a place (like, for instance, Germany, Spain, etc) where no such law exists.
There have been a few attempts to play "long arm" games with this law, particularly when someone notorious for publishing such software enters the US and gets "caught" here, even though they never committed an offense inside the United States. There is a LOT of political noise being made about this - the best advice if you're a foreign national who has or does publish such software is "stay out of the US, lest you be arrested!"
Oh, for the aggressive "game-players" out there who's best place is in the dredge behind my Hatt at 12 knots, I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on the net. I do, however, have close to 20 years of experience in the online industry and paid real lawyers for real opinions on these issues many times, and not once have I been caught "on the wrong side of the line." Take it for what you think its worth.
The first is that while you CAN sue someone for statutory (that is, not needing to be proven) damages under Copyright law, and oh, by the way, statutory damages can reach $100,000 per infringment, you must first register the work before you can do so, and that registration must pre-date the infringment.
That instantly voids statutory claims for essentially ALL postings to a mailing list, Usenet newsgroup, or BBS. The obvious exception would be an author who posted a piece (or all) of a published work that IS registered.
There are also compilation copyrights. For example, Yahoo Groups can claim a compilation copyright on the postings submitted to a discussion board, as can ScubaBoard on postings made to its system. However, that compilation copyright exists only on the collection; the individual postings themselves remain the property of the person who made them. Attempts to "attach" these as the exclusive property of a web site have been made in various board's terms of service, but to my knowledge that claim has never been tested in court, and I bet it fails if challenged on a number of grounds.
While it is also true that you have a copyright on ANYTHING you produce, notice or not, registered or not, you can only collect actual damages for an unregistered work.
Now what are "actual" damages in this case?
There is no claim of damages here, since there is no (1) commercial exploitation, and (2) the announcement relates to both a fact AND is an item of "news". In addition, there is a "fair use" exception for reporting items that are newsworthy.
SeaJay is both half right and half wrong. The case law precedent for online service providers extends back to a case called "Cubby .v. CompuServe" before the Internet was a consumer item. Essentially, the holding in that case was that so long as an online provider made no attempt to exert editorial control, they were immune from contributory copyright infringement lawsuits.
Now exactly where that line rested was not well-defined, which is part (but not all!) of why the DCMA was enacted. The other part of the DCMA's enactment was to criminalize the dissemination of technology intended to CIRCUMVENT copyright enforcement mechanisms (specifically, it was passed to try to stop the distribution of software that could break DVD encryption.) The fallacy of this legislation is, as SeaJay pointed out, that the Internet is not a US-centric thing and there is no "reach" possible in a US law to stop someone from publishing such software in a place (like, for instance, Germany, Spain, etc) where no such law exists.
There have been a few attempts to play "long arm" games with this law, particularly when someone notorious for publishing such software enters the US and gets "caught" here, even though they never committed an offense inside the United States. There is a LOT of political noise being made about this - the best advice if you're a foreign national who has or does publish such software is "stay out of the US, lest you be arrested!"
Oh, for the aggressive "game-players" out there who's best place is in the dredge behind my Hatt at 12 knots, I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on the net. I do, however, have close to 20 years of experience in the online industry and paid real lawyers for real opinions on these issues many times, and not once have I been caught "on the wrong side of the line." Take it for what you think its worth.
You've got it backwards. I showed you the scope of copyright above. Note the scope.
It limits, but does not eliminate, the right to sue a service provider. It does not limit the right to sue the person who copies the work.
That is not the issue. The issue is whether copying someone's work from their website and re-posting it renders the copier liable.
Check out the record industry suits against people who are ripping MP3's off the Net. They are going after the individuals who made the copies. They are getting their names by issuing subpoeas to the ISP's.
What's your point? Section 512 limits the liability of service providers. You are a service provider. The person who copies a work is not a service provider. Section 512 doesn't protect illegal copying.
Finally, yes, SeaJay, I'm a lawyer. More particularly, I specialize in intellectual property and commercial law. I'm also a Adjunct Professor of Law at UConn.
What year are you in?
Genesis' comments are largely correct. However, there are a couple of noteworthy distinctions.
First, failing to register the work may limit the plaintiff's ability to recover statutory damages.
Registration and Damages
Note that statutory damages may still be recovered if the registration is made within 3 months of the first publication date.
Second, even if statutory damages are not available and economic damages are small or nonexistent, injunctive relief is still available.
- Status
Similar threads
