Kazaa owners given ten days to conform or die - Page 5
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52

Thread: Kazaa owners given ten days to conform or die

  1. #41
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    Copyright used to be for a term of 50 years...making things like Mickey Mouse public property...but then Sonny Bono got into the act and it's been modified...

    304. Duration of copyright: Subsisting copyrights6

    (a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978.

    (1)(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.

    (B) In the case of

    (i) any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or

    (ii) any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire,

    the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.

    (C) In the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work

    (i) the author of such work, if the author is still living,

    (ii) the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author is not living,

    (iii) the author's executors, if such author, widow, widower, or children are not living, or

    (iv) the author's next of kin, in the absence of a will of the author, shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years.

    (2)(A) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which

    (i) if an application to register a claim to such further term has been made to the Copyright Office within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright, and the claim is registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in the proprietor of the copyright who is entitled to claim the renewal of copyright at the time the application is made; or

    (ii) if no such application is made or the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in the person or entity that was the proprietor of the copyright as of the last day of the original term of copyright.

    (B) At the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work specified in paragraph (1)(C) of this subsection, the copyright shall endure for a renewed and extended further term of 67 years, which

    (i) if an application to register a claim to such further term has been made to the Copyright Office within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright, and the claim is registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in any person who is entitled under paragraph (1)(C) to the renewal and extension of the copyright at the time the application is made; or

    (ii) if no such application is made or the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, shall vest, upon the beginning of such further term, in any person entitled under paragraph (1)(C), as of the last day of the original term of copyright, to the renewal and extension of the copyright.

    (3)(A) An application to register a claim to the renewed and extended term of copyright in a work may be made to the Copyright Office

    (i) within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright by any person entitled under paragraph (1)(B) or (C) to such further term of 67 years; and

    (ii) at any time during the renewed and extended term by any person in whom such further term vested, under paragraph (2)(A) or (B), or by any successor or assign of such person, if the application is made in the name of such person.

    (B) Such an application is not a condition of the renewal and extension of the copyright in a work for a further term of 67 years.

    (4)(A) If an application to register a claim to the renewed and extended term of copyright in a work is not made within 1 year before the expiration of the original term of copyright in a work, or if the claim pursuant to such application is not registered, then a derivative work prepared under authority of a grant of a transfer or license of the copyright that is made before the expiration of the original term of copyright may continue to be used under the terms of the grant during the renewed and extended term of copyright without infringing the copyright, except that such use does not extend to the preparation during such renewed and extended term of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by such grant.

    (B) If an application to register a claim to the renewed and extended term of copyright in a work is made within 1 year before its expiration, and the claim is registered, the certificate of such registration shall constitute prima facie evidence as to the validity of the copyright during its renewed and extended term and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificates of a registration of a renewed and extended term of copyright made after the end of that 1-year period shall be within the discretion of the court.

    (b) Copyrights in Their Renewal Term at the Time of the Effective Date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.7 Any copyright still in its renewal term at the time that the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act becomes effective shall have a copyright term of 95 years from the date copyright was originally secured.8

    (c) Termination of Transfers and Licenses Covering Extended Renewal Term. In the case of any copyright subsisting in either its first or renewal term on January 1, 1978, other than a copyright in a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of the renewal copyright or any right under it, executed before January 1, 1978, by any of the persons designated by subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

    (1) In the case of a grant executed by a person or persons other than the author, termination of the grant may be effected by the surviving person or persons who executed it. In the case of a grant executed by one or more of the authors of the work, termination of the grant may be effected, to the extent of a particular author's share in the ownership of the renewal copyright, by the author who executed it or, if such author is dead, by the person or persons who, under clause (2) of this subsection, own and are entitled to exercise a total of more than one-half of that author's termination interest.

    (2) Where an author is dead, his or her termination interest is owned, and may be exercised, as follows:

    (A) The widow or widower owns the author's entire termination interest unless there are any surviving children or grandchildren of the author, in which case the widow or widower owns one-half of the author's interest.

    (B) The author's surviving children, and the surviving children of any dead child of the author, own the author's entire termination interest unless there is a widow or widower, in which case the ownership of one-half of the author's interest is divided among them.

    (C) The rights of the author's children and grandchildren are in all cases divided among them and exercised on a per stirpes basis according to the number of such author's children represented; the share of the children of a dead child in a termination interest can be exercised only by the action of a majority of them.

    (D) In the event that the author's widow or widower, children, and grandchildren are not living, the author's executor, administrator, personal representative, or trustee shall own the author's entire termination interest.

    (3) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of fifty-six years from the date copyright was originally secured, or beginning on January 1, 1978, whichever is later.

    (4) The termination shall be effected by serving an advance notice in writing upon the grantee or the grantee's successor in title. In the case of a grant executed by a person or persons other than the author, the notice shall be signed by all of those entitled to terminate the grant under clause (1) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents. In the case of a grant executed by one or more of the authors of the work, the notice as to any one author's share shall be signed by that author or his or her duly authorized agent or, if that author is dead, by the number and proportion of the owners of his or her termination interest required under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, or by their duly authorized agents.

    (A) The notice shall state the effective date of the termination, which shall fall within the five-year period specified by clause (3) of this subsection, or, in the case of a termination under subsection (d), within the five-year period specified by subsection (d)(2), and the notice shall be served not less than two or more than ten years before that date. A copy of the notice shall be recorded in the Copyright Office before the effective date of termination, as a condition to its taking effect.

    (B) The notice shall comply, in form, content, and manner of service, with requirements that the Register of Copyrights shall prescribe by regulation.

    (5) Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant.

    (6) In the case of a grant executed by a person or persons other than the author, all rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grant revert, upon the effective date of termination, to all of those entitled to terminate the grant under clause (1) of this subsection. In the case of a grant executed by one or more of the authors of the work, all of a particular author's rights under this title that were covered by the terminated grant revert, upon the effective date of termination, to that author or, if that author is dead, to the persons owning his or her termination interest under clause (2) of this subsection, including those owners who did not join in signing the notice of termination under clause (4) of this subsection. In all cases the reversion of rights is subject to the following limitations:

    (A) A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant.

    (B) The future rights that will revert upon termination of the grant become vested on the date the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of this subsection.

    (C) Where the author's rights revert to two or more persons under clause (2) of this subsection, they shall vest in those persons in the proportionate shares provided by that clause. In such a case, and subject to the provisions of subclause (D) of this clause, a further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of a particular author's share with respect to any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is signed by the same number and proportion of the owners, in whom the right has vested under this clause, as are required to terminate the grant under clause (2) of this subsection. Such further grant or agreement is effective with respect to all of the persons in whom the right it covers has vested under this subclause, including those who did not join in signing it. If any person dies after rights under a terminated grant have vested in him or her, that person's legal representatives, legatees, or heirs at law represent him or her for purposes of this subclause.

    (D) A further grant, or agreement to make a further grant, of any right covered by a terminated grant is valid only if it is made after the effective date of the termination. As an exception, however, an agreement for such a further grant may be made between the author or any of the persons provided by the first sentence of clause (6) of this subsection, or between the persons provided by subclause (C) of this clause, and the original grantee or such grantee's successor in title, after the notice of termination has been served as provided by clause (4) of this subsection.

    (E) Termination of a grant under this subsection affects only those rights covered by the grant that arise under this title, and in no way affects rights arising under any other Federal, State, or foreign laws.

    (F) Unless and until termination is effected under this subsection, the grant, if it does not provide otherwise, continues in effect for the remainder of the extended renewal term.

    (d) Termination Rights Provided in Subsection (c) Which Have Expired on or before the Effective Date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. In the case of any copyright other than a work made for hire, subsisting in its renewal term on the effective date of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act9 for which the termination right provided in subsection (c) has expired by such date, where the author or owner of the termination right has not previously exercised such termination right, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of the renewal copyright or any right under it, executed before January 1, 1978, by any of the persons designated in subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section, other than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions:

    (1) The conditions specified in subsections (c) (1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) of this section apply to terminations of the last 20 years of copyright term as provided by the amendments made by the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

    (2) Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of 5 years beginning at the end of 75 years from the date copyright was originally secured.
    Essentially a copyright has a life of 28 years but that life can be extended an additional 67 years...totaling 95 years...almost double what it used to be.

    Eg


  2. #42
    Senior Member Info Tech Geek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Vernon, CT
    Posts
    828
    Originally posted here by Black Cluster
    We still have BitTorrent dude. I wouldn't download anything via Kazza. I do love BitTorrent.

    Cheers
    I agree, the P2P days are long gone, with sites like Torrentazos.com and ThePirateBay.org who needs a P2P program?

  3. #43
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    26
    I have no idea what possessed me to use copywrite instead of copyright. I'm smarter than that. Ugh.

    Thanks for posting the laws. I need it was some amount of time and then it could be extended, but wasn't sure. Google is my friend, right?
    I\'m Doc, fear me because..........well I don\'t know, but fear me anyway.

  4. #44
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    The announced "Death of Kazaa" has been put on hold:

    Technical Blunder Wins the Day for Kazaa
    November 25, 2005
    Thomas Mennecke


    Just one mistake has cost the ARIA (Australian Recording Industry Association) three months of unfettered public access to copyrighted works on the FastTrack network. Sharman Networks, in their attempt to build legitimacy, were pushing for an Audible Magic filter. The Australian recording industry was seeking a 3,000 word filter instead.

    In order to settle these differences, the Australian court ordered two "conclaves." These conclaves were gatherings of technical personnel from Sharman Networks and the ARIA. No lawyers were present as Judge Wilcox wanted to avoid any kind of legalese.

    The first meeting went very well, and both sides appeared close to coming to an agreement. Sharman Networks' stance on filtering copyrighted material with Audible Magic appeared to be gathering support of the ARIA's technical crew, but not with their lawyer, Mr. Michael Williams.

    Distressed in the direction the meeting went and not favoring the Audible Magic solution, Mr. Williams pulled the plug on the second meeting. Quite simply, Mr. Williams ordered the music industry's technical crew to simply not show up. This meeting could have accomplished a tremendous amount, such as organizing Kazaa's filtering technology for the December 5th deadline.

    However, Judge Wilcox was infuriated with the Australian music industry for violating the court's order.

    "When I heard about it I was extremely angry about it, I can tell you that. I will try and not let that determine my attitude to what has to be decided today, but I have to struggle not to. If Mr Williams wanted to call off the attendance you should have done so in good time and notified everybody in good time. Not has a situation where a 9 o'clock on Monday morning everyone was looking around and saying, well what is happening. I think it also was quite inappropriate for nobody on your side to turn up."

    Since the music industry did not show up to the second conclave, Judge Wilcox granted Sharman Networks a further stay until late February of 2006. Sharman will still have to work on filtering technology, as per the original ruling, but an amazing technical blunder by the Australian recording industry has prevented the immediate filtration of the FastTrack network.


    Slyk News

    May have to revisit this thread in Feb 2006
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  5. #45
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Hi Doc~,

    Not sure how things are over with you, but here, there are two basic aspects of copyright:

    1. Intellectual Copyright (Writer of Song/music)
    2. Mechanical Copyright (The performance/recording)

    You may find that you have the same. The actual performance/album is covered by #2

    To violate #1 you would need to perform a "cover version" or pinch some of the lines/riffs for your own composition.

    You will probably find that #2 is much shorter than #1

    I only ever did a two week copyright course many years ago, but it is a pretty complex subject because of the various parties and interests that could be involved. Also the course was aimed at accounting for copyright and royalties rather than infringements. Obviously you can "reverse engineer" the logic on the grounds that if you have to pay someone then it isn't in the public domain?

    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  6. #46
    The ******* Shadow dalek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1,564
    An interesting article for those interested in the 'Moral" aspects of this problem.


    Internet piracy is not a moral problem



    Edmund Tadros
    November 23, 2005 05:03 PM
    Advertisement

    iTunes shouldn't be
    this successful. It offers a product that can be obtained for free by illegal downloading from the internet.
    Yet consumers are still willing to buy music and television shows using Apple's service.
    The reason is simple. iTunes, despite its many problems, makes it easy to buy content digitally.
    When will the rest of the entertainment industry learn from this?

    I don't know how many music pirates have been converted by iTunes.
    But I do know the service goes some way towards solving one of the driving forces behind piracy: usability.
    It provides music in a format that can be used across many digital devices at a reasonable price.
    Yet content creators continue to beat the internet generation over the head with the the Copyrightassembly and Legal case against piracy.
    They should focus more on delivering content in a way that reflects the internet actually exists.
    Take, for example, the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft's anti-piracy ad.
    It's a loud and irritating ad that argues against movie piracy by comparing it to stealing from a shop.
    The internet savvy don't think in terms of right and wrong when they pirate. They think in terms of what is technically possible. They want to know how best to get the content they want in the format they want. Again, it's about usability.
    Sure, there is a moral case against piracy. But does it register with a generation used to getting what they want with a click?
    Content creators would be better served by offering their movies, music and television shows over the net than in making it even more difficult (and dangerous) to use their products.
    Emails to: etadros@smh.com.au

    Update: I've changed the link at the top to a more recent article.
    Scott mentioned www.allofmp3.com which has been written about before here . The concept of paying a monthly fee and being able to choose your (unprotected) digital format is interesting but unlikely to be endorsed by the content companies anytime soon.
    There are a number of comments in this article, and are interesting as well, both sides of the coin are represented in the comments:http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainmen...es/002908.html

    Also thanks to Sony's recent faux-pas, not everyone is going to switch from P2P to iTunes anytime soon.(the devil you know, then the one you don't)
    PC Registered user # 2,336,789,457...

    "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."
    Claude Swanson

  7. #47
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    26
    Originally posted here by nihil
    Hi Doc~,

    Not sure how things are over with you, but here, there are two basic aspects of copyright:

    1. Intellectual Copyright (Writer of Song/music)
    2. Mechanical Copyright (The performance/recording)

    You may find that you have the same. The actual performance/album is covered by #2

    To violate #1 you would need to perform a "cover version" or pinch some of the lines/riffs for your own composition.

    You will probably find that #2 is much shorter than #1

    I only ever did a two week copyright course many years ago, but it is a pretty complex subject because of the various parties and interests that could be involved. Also the course was aimed at accounting for copyright and royalties rather than infringements. Obviously you can "reverse engineer" the logic on the grounds that if you have to pay someone then it isn't in the public domain?

    There's been a big stink over here for awhile about intellectual property. I believe that is what you may be referring to. I've never, ever, in my entire life even looked at the copyright law.
    I\'m Doc, fear me because..........well I don\'t know, but fear me anyway.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,190
    Yes, we have had similar in Europe. That is a bit different as it involves concepts and patents.

    Over here authors, publishers, recording companies, photographers etc automatically get copyright to their work. They do not have to file anything.

    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    115
    Originally posted here by Info Tech Geek
    I agree, the P2P days are long gone, with sites like Torrentazos.com and ThePirateBay.org who needs a P2P program?
    You misunderstand the nature of "P2P":- it stands for Peer to Peer, so in essence your torrents are P2P, just a new breed...

  10. #50
    T̙͓̞̣̯ͦͭͅͅȂͧͭͧ̏̈͏̖̖Z̿ ͆̎̄
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,171
    Hi nihil,

    Over here authors, publishers, recording companies, photographers etc automatically get copyright to their work. They do not have to file anything.
    It's the same here on this shore...technically you are covered the moment you create something...copyright only provides a date that you can use in court to verify ownership...a self-addressed package with a postmark provides the same security...
    registering your property doesn't even provide legal relief, copyright holders are responsible for policing and protecting their own work regardless...that's why these copyright policing organizations got started up...
    essentially, a copyright registration is useless except as a way to verify ownership.

    The copyright laws themselves are based upon the same principles as all law...the honor system...except....until recently they had no teeth...there was no criminal case you could legitimately pursue 15+ years ago, it was a civil matter...you took the culprits to court at your own risk and then you had to prove you suffered damages...for the most part it was a waste of time unless we're talking major damages like when the Chiffons sued George Harrison over the song ' My Sweet Lord ' in which it was proven to be a slower re-make of ' He's So Fine " ...

    but for the most part it was a waste of time to pursue copyright infringers in civil courts...now, however, with the new penalties of ' criminal ' law taking effect under copyright law...this is a whole new ballgame

    Eg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •