What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
73 Comments
- dani0100, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Here's the deal guys. Yes, U.S. law does say that your creative expressions are "copyrighted" as soon as they created (or, more accurately, embodied in a "tangible" form). However, you cannot SUE somebody for infringement of your copyright until and unless you have registered that copyright. Furthermore, if you only register AFTER you find out someone has infringed, then you lose, as Jon suggests, certain rights such as the availability of statutory damages and attorneys fees.
What you CAN do (and what I assume Jon's attorney told him, but he is just not being informative in his post) is get an expedited copyright registration (usually takes about 3 days and costs about $700 in fees to the copyright office) and then sue for actual damages. I think what Jon is saying is that he decided that's not worth it because the damages might be very low since he is giving the software aware for free (as in beer). Reasonable minds could disagree, since one might argue that Sony would have had to pay for their use because it is not allowed under the GPL and Jon might have made, say, $2 a copy per album distributed with the software, but that's Jon's decision.
An injunction might have also been possible, except for the fact that Sony is no longer distributing the software and has no intention to do so.
This is a good time to remind all you software developers out there to go ahead and file a copyright registration when you first release your products. It costs $30 and is pretty simple. See here for more info:
Advantages of Copyright Registration:
http://www.publaw.com/advantage.html
How to Register a Literary Work (includes programs):
http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html - ckedge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Registration is not required for a work to be copyrighted. It is, however, required for statutory damages to be available."
So how much does it cost for registration, and is it easy? Bloody f'ing stupid if you ask me. So the big boys get statutory damages because they have money to pay lawyers to fill out forms all day, but the rest of us get jack ***** protection from big huge corporations who mis-use our work? F'ing stupid system. - j0keR, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Oh well. He'll pay them back once he cracks the encoding on Blu-Ray.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Correct me if I'm wrong, and you diggers will :P, but isn't anything after about 1978 or something automatically copyrighted, regardless of the inclusion of a copyright notice?
- lordelph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Many seem to be missing the point even though summed it up in two bullet points.
Yes, his work is copyrighted automatically, the point is that he can't get *statutory* damages without being registered with the US copyright office.
Now, he could go after *actual* damages, but as he released his work freely, how much has he actually lost? "Your Honour, Sony broke the licence agreement I placed on the code, and I lost, well, zero dollars! I demand satisfaction!"
I would have thought it would be worthwhile for the EFF to step up and defend the GPL violation though? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i think dvd jon needs to get better legal advise. IANAL, but last time i checked the news the facts your code was GPL had NOTHING to do with allowing people to steal your work and not be able to claim damages.
the GPL clearly states including GPL code in your work copies the GPL to your project. it's one of the linch pins of GPL. sony copied his work then proceeded to distribute it to 100,000's of people, without making the source avaliable ( and hence giving dvd jon credit for his work).
so why then should sony get away with this kind of thieft? they spew rubbish about dvd and mp3 pirates left right and center, then violate everyone elses copyrights behind the scenes.
what a bunch of wankers. now i remmeber why i don't buy anything sony. - Iconoclast5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I take it we are now using the Fark definition of irony here on Digg?
- kram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Rndm Tngnt,
Did you even bother to check the link I posted? Since I don't think so, I've saved you the effort and posted the first paragraph verbatim...
"Make sure your work is a literary work. Literary works may be published or unpublished and include nondramatic textual works with or without illustrations. Computer programs and databases also are considered literary works."
"Literary works" does encompass DVD Jon's work.
And as for the whining comment, as another poster here pointed out..."I don't like this situation but I just have to say, Ironic eh...". DVD Jon made his fame cracking encryption so that other could PIRATE DVDs. What goes around comes around. I don't like Sony, but I dislike whiny hypocrites even more. - chrism1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that it's pretty funny, they both ripped each other off. They're both at least a little pissed.
They both can't really do much about it.
That's kind of poetic justice.
Even though DVD Jon is cool and Sony munches ass! - ionix18, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He is just whining. GPL has no legal ground for the publisher but it acts as a protection for the user. This indeed is a proof for the user that they have a right to use the software. Now technically Sony is breaking the law by not publishing the source code of the derivative work made from it. Sony is not breaking the law by using it in a commercial manner and for gain. The copyright indeed protects DVD John but considering this software is given away for free, it doesn't apply here. It's not a copyright matter but a license issue. Now how legal is the GPL? No one knows because it has never been challenged. It is as legal as the EULA you see in software that prevent you from doing a dis assembly of the bin and whatnot. I have been on digg for a while and I have seen this claim over and over on digg:
The EULA have no power in court because you did not have the chance to negotiate etc...
Well the GPL license is just that. You can't have both the enforceable GPL and the unenforceable EULA. Oh and by the way, the GPL is an EULA...
To resume quickly, The issue here is not about copyright because you can't claim damage over something that you gave for free even if it has a license on it. Sounds weird but Microsoft could not sue you for copyright infringement if you put windows Vista on p2p networks. But they can sue for NDA and LICENSE breach.
There is a license violation here and damage could be awarded but should a favourable judgment be made for GPL, it would create prejudice to all the EULA out there and I am not looking forward to it. - laughterkillsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You all argue like sony's 13435872395723847890234 lawyers vs his 1 lawyer would mean anything in the courts even if he had grounds.
- kram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Check this link:
http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
It seems DVD Jon only would have had to lay out $30 and some of his spare time to fill out and mail in the application. I'm all for taking big business to task, but if I were going to go through all the time and trouble to create something worthy of copyrighting, I'm damn sure going to do my homework and get it copyrighted. Sorry Jon, quit you whining. - zergrush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"2) to win $ from sony, he needs to prove "actual damages," that is, the amount of money that he is personally out due the infringement. since his work was licensed under the GPL, he is out $0 - he was giving it away, not making any money from it, and not expecting to make any money from it."
Well, not quite. Take "Avast!" for example; their software is completely and totally free for *home use*, but they charge money for their software for *buisness use*. If you violate the license by using the 'free' home version in a corporate environment, there's clearly defined damage.
In DVDJon's case he released it under the GPL, and Sony clearly violated the license they had for the software and code. Had they approached him in an attempt to negotiate an alternative license, he could easily have recieved a significant ammount of money for his copyrighted works. By skipping negotiation and violating the provided license, Sony has denied him this possibility.
DVDJon should easily be able to settle out of court, with the most likely terms agreed upon being a release of all source code in question and a public statement from Sony acknowledging the GPL as valid. However, as a private individual he lacks the resources required to do this, and so his case will go undefended unless an organization like the EFF steps up to the plate and represents him. - Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Didn't he assign copyrights to the FSF?
- geocar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You do not inherently have the right to redistribute software.
"Licenses" can grant rights, such as redistribution, as the GPL does, but they usually have other terms. If those terms are not met, then you cannot redistribute the software and are breaking the law.
To satisfy the GPL, you do not have to distribute the source with it, you have to make the person that you are distributing it to aware that they have software that they can redistribute under the GPL, what that means, and a offer that they can use (or any one else can use) to get the source from you.
Sony broke the law because they redistributed software illegally. They could have redistributed this software legally had they made it clear to the user that they were getting GPL software and that they could ask Sony for the source code to the software that they were getting.
But if they had "just" included the source with the package? Inside or outside the "hidden" directory, they still wouldn't have satisfied the terms because they wouldn't have made it clear to the person they are redistributing to what rights they had been granted and how to obtain the source code. - drandolph, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There was a digg about copyright awhile back and it said that
“Berne copyright convention. For example, after April 1, 1989, almost everything created privately in the USA is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you must assume for other people’s works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you *know* otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.”
(I am quoting from the website and linking directly to it.)
(I hope that me quoting it does not mean that I am in violation of a copyright)
http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/10cpmyth.html
In my opnion I would ask another lawyer. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2> This part "was licensed under the GPL." makes absolutely no sense. GPL says a very simple thing: you cannot take away freedom to use and hack software. If someone, i.e., sony bmg, took away this freedom by keeping the code, that's called copyright infringement.
Copyright infringment is determined in part based on any damages the copy will cause. Since the software is being given away for free, it would be very difficult to collect any damages.
Secondly, the GPL is not "Copyright", it is a license that is slapped on top of copyright. Furthermore, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the GPL has not been proven to be legal. It is in all effect, a "shrinkwrap license", or a contract that is never signed for, a contract that never has a meeting of minds and a resolution of a fair trade (a key component of a true contract). Many argue that the GPL holds as little power as those stupid "licenses" you get when you install a piece of software that and prevents you from looking at the files in a hex editor, making personal backups, signs away your first born child, etc. And in fact if the GPL were to be validated as a contract in a court of law, it would effectively make those asinine licenses valid as well. - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This, on the surface, would appear to be a good case for testing the GPL. You have a commercial entity using GPL'd software in a commercial way and distributing without source code.
- lordsandwich, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They should've known better than to piss off DVD Jon.
- kram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1cacoe,
Yes, I do think someone in Norway is going to pay the $30 to have the applications accepted and proccessed, especially if he or she expects full legal coverage under US law. - takusi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This part "was licensed under the GPL." makes absolutely no sense. GPL says a very simple thing: you cannot take away freedom to use and hack software. If someone, i.e., sony bmg, took away this freedom by keeping the code, that's called copyright infringement. This is very simple. As we all know by now, you cannot violate someone else's copyright and this time Sony BMG did. GPL only protects you from facing such violation not vice versa.
- clevershark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well I'd respond to that by downloading more Sony BMG content for free, but I don't think they have anything I want that I don't already have.
- Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> Simple solution: Abolish intellectual property
Only people that don't own any say things like that - rolosworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1well... if I was Jon I would require sony to make all their code available as GPL (since thats what GPL is about) and if they don't wan't to do it try to get an agreement to let them use the code in exchange for $$.. I agree with the lawyer, demand for $$ is kind of hard on this case, so he should try a backdoor.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yet another reason to boycot ANYTHING Sony.
Boooooo Sony. - Rosewood, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4More proof that these laws are not there to help foster a spirit of creation, but to make rich people richer. I'm all for the persuit of $$$ but ***** tell it like it is!
- Abx0r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DVD Jon is Norwegian, I suspect he created this code while in Norway. Also, he now lives in the US. heh.
- olegk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Registration is not required for a work to be copyrighted. It is, however, required for statutory damages to be available."
I think this is BS. Works are copyrighted automatically, when they are created. All you have to do is to prove that you created it. - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And I agree with other posters. It's all too poetic.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hate it when things like this happen . The best thing we can do as consumers is to simply boycott Sony products
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1> Am I the only person who sees the irony in this?
The irony is lost (and gets more and more diluted) due the massive number of times that copyright has been used to stifle innovation, bully programmers into quitting/abandoning a project after moving to another company and general profiteering (without giving back to the community) that happens to GPL code bases.
...so, nice try, but no cigar and shame on you for even bringing "irony" to the table. - Digital.Totem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't like this situation but I just have to say, Ironic eh...
- mementh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1major digg
i mean it seems all the laws in the last 20 years for copy rights and protection have been made to keep the big buisnesses happy and supported..
there has been little to no growth is the small area because you can't get protection - hombrelobo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Big Digg !!
Hope this doesn't mean that GPL is useless. Where is the EFF now ??? They HAVE to help DVD John.
And Sony has to pay, the same I have to pay for everything Sony has copyrighted !!! - hottyson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0DVD John is a hero. I digg stories about him.
DUGG! - coldplaymusic, on 03/19/2009, -0/+0Taking this problem to the court. Hire a lawyer. You could sue them and win.
http://coldplaymusic.co.cc - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I think what Jon is saying is that he decided that's not worth it because the damages might be very low since he is giving the software aware[sic] for free (as in beer)."
Actually, he is giving his software away for free (as in speech.) I think you misunderstand the whole free (as in beer) saying. It's from the GNU GPL, of which this software was licensed:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - MacGyver, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Oh the irony.
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gg @ zergrush. Tired just reading that. Most of your points are dead on, but it doesn't change the fact that Jon would have a hard time proving damages, which is what the case would turn on. If he had enough patience and money to drop on lawyers this would be interesting to see which way it would go. However, since Sony has (as above) entire Battalions of lawyers ready to fire volleys of briefs, it just isn't worth the time.
- cwoolf34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1hilarious, he had it coming.
- inverselimit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0from http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html
Literary Works
Follow these steps to register your book, manuscript, online work, poetry, or other text:
Step 1
Make sure your work is a literary work. Literary works may be published or unpublished and include nondramatic textual works with or without illustrations. Computer programs and databases also are considered literary works. Here are more examples and specific information.
To register serials and periodicals, see the Serial Works instructions.
Step 2
Put into one envelope or package:
* a completed application Form TX or Short Form TX (choose which form to use)
* a $30 payment to "Register of Copyrights."
* nonreturnable copy(ies) of the material to be registered. Read details on deposit requirements.
Please read this important notice about mail delivery disruption.
Step 3
Send the package to:
Library of Congress
Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20559-6000
Your registration becomes effective on the day that the Copyright Office receives your application, payment, and copy(ies) in acceptable form. If your submission is in order, you will receive a certificate of registration in 4 to 5 months.
For more details about copyright, please see our information circulars. - kiranlightpaw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We need Fark's "Irony" tag.
- velvetshark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is for Opera, since he/she is so f*cking wrong it's pathetic:
http://www.european-patent-office.org/index.en.php - Matt2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> There is a couple of major differences between the GPL and the EULAs. Before you purchase or download software under the GPL, it's extremely rare that you're not notified that it's covered under the GPL. When I go to best buy and buy some software, almost all of them have EULAs, but I don't get to agree to it until *after* I've purchased the software.
That's not entirely true, some softwares have the licenses posted on the outside of the box. Additionally, people have successfully obtained refunds in cases like this, but I still feel it is avoiding the issue and placing the emphasis on a point that is less significant. Rather than when (or if) you are displayed the license, it's an issue of whether you've agreed to a contract.
Take for example, I send some 11 year old kid into the store to buy me a copy of XP. They come home and install it for me. *I* never agreed or signed any contract. Is the 11 year old capable of being entered into a legally binding contract? It seems very unlikely. Maybe I'm old-school, but to me, but if I'm entering into a contract, you'd better darn well have my signature on something, or something else more tangible than "Well we SHOWED you the contract.. Maybe.. It was kind of bundled in as a text file. You probably saw it" - dynein, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0im not going to read all of these comments, but as a (non-practicing) copyright lawyer, i can tell you that "jon" did get good advice.
1) yes, his work is protected by copyright
2) to win $ from sony, he needs to prove "actual damages," that is, the amount of money that he is personally out due the infringement. since his work was licensed under the GPL, he is out $0 - he was giving it away, not making any money from it, and not expecting to make any money from it. he might also be able to disgorge sony of the profit that they made using the material - here, that amount is likely zero, since they're not selling the product as a standalone. jon might have a case against the third party company that developed the scheme for sony, depending on the terms of the GPL.
3) had he registered the work, he would have been eligible for "statutory damages" under 17 USC 504, which provide for up to $150,000 per incident for a willing infringement.
it's not that hard to register a work with the copyright office - hey, maybe i should set up a little internet based practice solely for software developers to register their works. ;-)
sidenote- since i can't seem to ever enter the little code without getting "* Error in entering captcha" at least 5 times, this is probably my last comment on digg, evar. - dostroyer, on 06/07/2008, -0/+0hilarious, he had it coming.
http://www.anadolujet.gen.tr
http://2008sbs.blogspot.com - FarcePest, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Literary works explicitly include software and databases, as stated here:
http://www.copyright.gov/register/literary.html (originally posted by Kram) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The GPL has never been tested in any court anywhere in the world, so there is a degree of risk."
GPL was upheld in Germany
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/09/04/gpl_court_challenge_.html - ShaolinTiger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm, let's hope the GPL get's tested again in US court and stands up, to make a case for everyone else who is being abused by weaknesses in the GPL (Does GPL v3 fix this?)
- Xepo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Well the GPL license is just that. You can't have both the enforceable GPL and the unenforceable EULA. Oh and by the way, the GPL is an EULA..."
There is a couple of major differences between the GPL and the EULAs. Before you purchase or download software under the GPL, it's extremely rare that you're not notified that it's covered under the GPL. When I go to best buy and buy some software, almost all of them have EULAs, but I don't get to agree to it until *after* I've purchased the software.
There's another reason that the GPL differs. The GPL doesn't limit your rights, it expands them. If you don't agree to the GPL, then you're not allowed to distribute the software, but you're still free to use it. The GPL is not an EULA (in the normal sense, at least), because EULAs put limits on what you can do with something you've purchased without notifying you before you purchased it, GPL only puts limits on the software if you choose to distribute it. (Note, that it is *legal* according to the license to modify GPL code, deciding not to give away the code with the binaries, as long as you don't distribute it.) -
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is