background preloader

Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Digital Millennium Copyright Act
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.[1][2] Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users. Provisions[edit] Title IV: Miscellaneous Provisions[edit] Related:  Tech laws

Re: Wikipedia and Commons screenshots of GNU programms [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index] Re: Wikipedia and Commons screenshots of GNU programms Scripsit Patrick-Emil Zörner <paddyez@yahoo.de> > My question is the following:is there a policy or rule of if and how > screenshots of GNU programs may be published? You would be better off asking that question of the FSF. Reply to: References: Stop Online Piracy Act Proponents of the legislation said it would protect the intellectual-property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and was necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign-owned and operated websites. Claiming flaws in present laws that do not cover foreign-owned and operated websites, and citing examples of active promotion of rogue websites by U.S. search engines, proponents asserted that stronger enforcement tools were needed. Opponents claimed that the proposed legislation threatened free speech and innovation, and enabled law enforcement to block access to entire internet domains due to infringing content posted on a single blog or webpage. They expressed concerns that SOPA would bypass the "safe harbor" protections from liability presently afforded to websites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Overview[edit] The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. On December 12, 2011 a revised version of the bill was tabled.

Glitch art Glitch art is the aestheticization of digital or analog errors, such as artifacts and other "bugs", by either corrupting digital code/data or by physically manipulating electronic devices (for example by circuit bending). History of the term[edit] In a technical sense a glitch is the unexpected result of a malfunction. It was first recorded in English in 1962 during the American space program by John Glenn when describing problems they were having, Glenn explained, "Literally, a glitch is a spike or change in voltage in an electrical current."[1] Early examples of glitches used in media art include Digital TV Dinner (1979) created by Raul Zaritsky, Jamie Fenton, and Dick Ainsworth by manipulating the Bally's video game console and recording the results on videotape. Further reading[edit] Almond, Richard. See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit]

Adobe v. One Stop Micro Citation Edit Adobe Sys. Inc. v. One Stop Micro, Inc., 84 F.Supp.2d 1086, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 2003 (N.D. Factual Background Plaintiff, Adobe Systems Inc., (“Adobe”), is the developer and publisher of various software products including Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Dreamweaver and Adobe Acrobat. Defendant, One Stop Micro, Inc. Upon learning of One Stop’s actions, Adobe filed suit, alleging that One Stop infringed its copyright, diluted and infringed its trademark, interfered with contractual relations, and violated the Lanham Act. Subsequently, Adobe filed a motion for summary judgment on these claims. Trial Court Proceedings At trial, the district court granted Adobe’s motion for summary judgment in part and denied it in part. In denying One Stop’s motion, the district court was forced to examine whether Adobe’s ORCA agreements constitute a sale, or a license of software. Despite this defense, the court found One Stop’s argument to be without merit.

Freedom to roam The freedom to roam, or everyman's right is the general public's right to access certain public or privately owned land for recreation and exercise. The right is sometimes called the right of public access to the wilderness or the right to roam. In different countries[edit] In England and Wales public access rights apply to certain categories of mainly uncultivated land—specifically "mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land." Developed land, gardens and certain other areas are specifically excluded from the right of access. In Scotland and the Nordic countries of Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden as well as the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania the freedom to roam may take the form of general public rights which are sometimes codified in law. Many tropical countries such as Madagascar have historic policies of open access to forest or wilderness areas. In the Nordic countries[edit] Access rights are most often for travel on foot. Finland[edit] Norway[edit]

Right to quote Right to quote is a legal concept in continental Europe, which some people consider similar to fair use.[1] It allows for quoting excerpts of copyrighted works, as long as the cited paragraphs are within a reasonable limit (varying from country to country), clearly marked as quotations and fully referenced, and if the resulting new work is not just a collection of quotations, but constitutes a fully original work in itself. In some countries the intended use of the work (educational, scientific, parodist, etc.) may also be a factor determining the scope of this right. France[edit] In France, it is illegal to reproduce someone's work without their approval. Germany[edit] In Germany, the right to quote is extended considerably for research purposes and may even encompass complete works (e. g. texts, pictures, music or videos).[3] References[edit] See also[edit] Fair dealing

PROTECT IP Act The PROTECT IP Act is a re-write of the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA),[5] which failed to pass in 2010. A similar House version of the bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), was introduced on October 26, 2011.[6] In the wake of online protests held on January 18, 2012, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that a vote on the bill would be postponed until issues raised about the bill were resolved.[7][8][9] Content[edit] The bill defines infringement as distribution of illegal copies, counterfeit goods, or anti-digital rights management technology. The PROTECT IP Act says that an "information location tool shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, to remove or disable access to the Internet site associated with the domain name set forth in the order". Supporters[edit] Legislators[edit] Companies and trade organizations[edit] The U.S. Others[edit] Opponents[edit] Legislators[edit] Companies and organizations[edit]

When two tribes meet: collaborations between artists and scientists | Art and design Yes, Leonardo da Vinci was both artist and inventor. True, Brian Cox was in that band before he gave it all up for the Large Hadron Collider. But in general, art and science seem to eye each other uncomprehendingly. Medical research charity the Wellcome Trust has long tried to make artists and scientists work fruitfully together by funding collaborations. The artist and the geneticist Just before 9/11, Marc Quinn did a portrait of Sir John Sulston, one of the genetic scientists who decoded the human genome. It was a radical departure for portraiture. "Well, yes," says Sulston, "but DNA gives the instructions for making a baby, not an adult. A decade after their collaboration, Quinn and Sulston are meeting in the artist's east London studio. "Science simply means finding out about stuff, but in that process science is the greatest driver of culture," says Sulston. That is very much the focus of Quinn's recent work. Quinn says Sulston's portrait was important to his later work.

Adobe Systems v. Stargate Software Citation Edit Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Stargate Software, Inc., 216 F.Supp.2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (full-text). Factual Background Plaintiff, Adobe Systems Inc., (“Adobe”), is the developer and publisher of various software products including Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Dreamweaver and Adobe Acrobat. In conjunction with releasing its software to the general public, Adobe produces “Educational” versions of its software packages at a discount. Defendant, Stargate Systems Inc. Upon learning of Stargate's activities, Adobe set up a “trap purchase” of Educational software from the company. Trial Court Proceedings Shortly after purchasing the unauthorized copy, Adobe filed suit against Stargate for infringing Adobe's copyrights by obtaining and selling Educational versions of Adobe software without Adobe's authorization. Stargate contends that it is the rightful owner of Adobe software products and that Adobe’s claim for copyright infringement is erroneous. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

もう一つの著作権の話 1 はじめに 私は、まだ中学生または高校生である皆さんのために著作権の仕組みを解説して、 皆さんの自主的な意思のもとに著作権を尊重してもらえるように、 と考えてこの文章を書くことにしました。 皆さんにむけて書かれた著作権の話は、すでにいろいろとあるようです。しかし、 そうした話の大部分は「著作権法を守りましょう」「書籍やコンパクトディスク(CD) やビデオを勝手にコピーすると法律で罰せられます」 ということを皆さんに訴えるだけに止まっているようです。 既にしっかりとした判断力と自分の考えを持っている皆さんにとって、ただ 「法律を守りましょう」といわれるだけでは、 納得がいかない部分もあるのではないかと私は考えます。 そこで、この『もうひとつの著作権の話』では、 「なぜ私たちが著作権を尊重しなければならないのか」 という根本的な理由についていっさい手を抜かずに、 でも難しい用語や概念を使わずに説明することを目標としています。 2 こまった著作権! さて、皆さんはこれまでに一度くらいは「著作権」 という言葉を聞いたことがあると思います。 最近は情報化社会という時代に入ったとよく言われます。 まず、情報化社会とは、私たちの欲望の対象が具体的な「物」に加えて、 形を持たない「情報」に広がった時代だということができます。 しかしながら、たとえばゲーム機の場合、 ゲームの機械だけを買ってきても意味がありませんね。 次に情報化時代とは、そうした「情報」 の取り使い方が大きく進歩した時代ということができます。 ところが、情報化時代においては、コピー機やMDやビデオデッキがあります。 さて、 明治時代以来の私たちの国でこうした情報の取り扱いについて定めた法律として著作 権法や特許法のようないくつかの法律があります。 情報化時代以前の時代では、 先にも述べたように情報を物から分離して取り扱うことは非常に大変で、 普通の家庭で作品のコピーを作ることは実際にはほとんど不可能でした。 ところが情報化時代になりますと、 普通の家庭の周辺にカセットデッキやビデオレコーダ、コピー機、 コンピュータなどがごく普通に存在するようになりました。 あまりにそれらの機器の性能が向上したために、 書店やCD店で売られている作品とほとんど同じ品質のものを家庭で作成することがで きるようになってきました。 3 なぜ著作権?

Fair dealing Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, which is found in many of the common law jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations. Fair dealing is an enumerated set of possible defences against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright. Unlike the related United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing cannot apply to any act which does not fall within one of these categories. Fair dealing by country[edit] Australia[edit] In Australia, the grounds for fair dealing are: Research and study (section 40 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth)[1]Review and criticism (s41)[2]"Reporting the news" (s42)[3]Legal advice (although the federal Crown is deemed to own copyright in federal statutes, and the Crown in each State in state statutes). Regarding fair dealing under Crown copyright the Australian Copyright Act 1968, ss.176-178. Canada[edit] The 2004 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in CCH Canadian Ltd. v.

Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. Background[edit] In 2002, the Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("McCain-Feingold" or "BCRA"), amending the Federal Election Campaign Act to further regulate money in public election campaigns. One primary purpose of the legislation was to regulate what were colloquially known as "issue ads." Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. In the first round of litigation, the federal district court ruled that the language of McConnell v. On remand, the FEC argued that ads run so close to an election and naming a candidate or candidates should be presumed to have the intent of influencing the election, and thus BCRA's limitation on financing such ads with corporate funds was constitutionally valid. Opinion of the Supreme Court[edit] [Wedding scene]

Is This Photo Ethical? Back in March there was a heated debate about this photo taken of 15-year-old Fabienne Cherisma, who was shot and killed by police after stealing two two plastic chairs and three framed pictures. It reminded me much about my recent blog post about Ethics and Street Photography. One of the photos shot by photographer Paul Hansen, was chosen as the best International News Image at the Swedish Picture of the Year Awards. In March 2010, Hansen discussed the image and circumstances of Fabienne’s death stating, “For me, Fabienne’s death and her story is a poignant reminder of the need for a society to have basic security – with or without a disaster.” Looking at the image above, it is a very emotional image that does bring great amounts of awareness to this horrible issue. It is crushing to see how emotionally detached these photographers can be when shooting the image by checking their LCD screens in a casual way (edit: I mistook a photographer checking his settings for viewing his LCD).

Related:  Internet e Política