How to diss your customers

[Peachy]

In the era of web standards some companies just don't get it. I guess Buy.com doesn't like Linux/Firebird using anarcho-computer users:http://www.buymusic.comHow else to explain such a 1995 attitude to 21st Century web customers.

[GolfProRM]

According to the FAQ (had to bust out IE *ick* to read it)

Why do I need Internet Explorer instead of Netscape or another browser?Your browser must be Internet Explorer. (See Minimum System Requirements.) If you browse the site with Netscape you cannot purchase and download music. The reason is that your music files are wrapped in DRM encryption, which is unencrypted by the license that you download when you download the music file. The license download requires and Active-X control which is only compatible with Internet Explorer. Without it you cannot download your license and your music stays encrypted and unusable.

You'd think they could find a better way to do this than using ActiveX... Besides... they're using WMA files, and you need WMP9.0 thanks to the DRM...

[nlinecomputers]

Heck the dang DRM is more a reason to boycot them then the Active X stuff. I can live with Active X. I don't like it but I can live with it. The real reason is the DRM.

[GolfProRM]

One more interesting thing to note... When it comes to the number of times the file can be burned to CD or copied to another system isn't universal... Example: If you download two songs, one from Record Company A, and one from Record Company B, you may be able to burn the first song 5 times, but the second song will only be able to burn 3 times...I guess you can right click on the WMA file and tell how many times you have left, but seems a bit confusing to me as to why they didn't just take the lowest limits and set them all there?

[Peachy]

Which is why all the more to make the home page accessible to all browsers. Then point out on that page that you need IE to download the songs!On another note, I just read this article at Fortune in which apparently, InterTrust just won a pretrial suit against Microsoft claiming that Redmond infringed on its patents for DRM-related technology that Microsoft uses in all its product lines. This is something Microsoft would like to keep quiet, understandably, since it would affect its stock price.

[havnblast]

Peachy your title for this is perfect - I can not believe any major website would not have browser dectection in it to direct you to the proper path. I guess they figure everyone has IE on their computer and can start that up. I just can't believe the stupidity of a site that offers sales to do such a thing

[Prelude76]

gee... option (A) - download a silly .WMA format that locks # of times you can copy it to a CD, and can only be played in WMP9.option ( - download free .MP3 formats. copy unlimited times. play on any player.hmmm... let me think about this one if a website just let you pay for and download high-quality MP3s that are yours to do what you want with them, unlimited times, then such a website will become popular. if you make it a .WMA format and throw in restrictive DRM, and expect people to pay for this, you're smokin' somethin'.

[havnblast]

Boycott the RIAA and DRM!!

[Marsden11]

Let's boycott air... that will solve all problems!I'm all for DRM! I think artists have a right to scratch a few pennies for their efforts. If all you wish to do is bitch and moan about not being able to get something for nothing... knock yourselves out. I will continue to buy music CDs like I always have.I don't need a paticular browser nor do I need to worry about how many times I burned it.

[havnblast]

Well ummm ok, but I'm not talking about getting things for free. I think being able to have a monthly subscription to a site to download whatever you wanted for music is a great idea, but yet music groups like Metallica and RIAA don't support it that well. If I buy it I don't want to deal with the headache of DRM. I am all for supporting artists and programmers, they have to eat too, but they need to listen to the public and try to work with them instead of sueing their customers or making them use a certain piece of software.

[Marsden11]

They have chosen MS because MS responded to the content creators wants. They wanted a way to protect their content. MS has provided that way via DRM. Seems to me if other browsers want to play in that space... they had better get busy on adding DRM to their respective offerings. They could always build a better DRM system than MS...<<but they need to listen to the public and try to work with them >>So the public should dictate what the content creators do with their content? That sounds like the content belongs to the public and not the creators of said content. That is not the way it works.If I don't like the price of gas here in the Bay Area (we pay more for a gallon than anywhere else in this nation) I can choose not to buy it and thus not drive very far in a regular car. You say I should band together with my fellow upset gas buyers and complain... To whom? What your saying is I have to get envolved in politics and run for office to change or make some new laws... Big Oil gets wind of my efforts and soon my rival has money up the waazoo to defeat me... I never get elected... because those with the money will keep the money flowing in at all costs. That is just the way it is. I'm sure you have heard the expression, "pick your battles..." This is one of those you are not going to win. Why? Because you are not in the majority. And you are not sitting on all the money. They are trying right now in Washington to pass new laws to make sharing a single music file or movie a Federal Felony... Welcome to the American way...

[nlinecomputers]

So the public should dictate what the content creators do with their content? That sounds like the content belongs to the public and not the creators of said content. That is not the way it works.

Yes we do have that right via Congress. Copyright is not one the unalienable rights. It is a right granted to the people by the government.

Congress shall have the power ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Why a limted right? Why not lifetime or for ever? Because the framers of the Constitution felt that ideas belonged to everyone but reconized that people need some method of compensation to provide a means to drive that creativity for the common good.

I'm sure you have heard the expression, "pick your battles..." This is one of those you are not going to win. Why? Because you are not in the majority. And you are not sitting on all the money. They are trying right now in Washington to pass new laws to make sharing a single music file or movie a Federal Felony... Welcome to the American way...

Indeed I hope we aren't truely at that point yet. If so then we the people have lost all hope of control over our government. The corporations have won. I don't think that it is totally lost. If enough of the public gets fixed on an idea Congress will back off. The scum have to get reelected. But it takes major public opinion to sway them that way. Problem is most people that steal music online aren't doing it because of some grand moral cause. They do it because they can and because its free. Why pay for it when you know how to get it free and your not likely to get caught? Also it is hard to think of it as a crime when everything about it is so abstract. It is easy to see theft when you are shoving CDs up your pant leg at the music store. This is harder for many to fathom.

[Mike Healan]

If you want to support your favorites musicians, buy concert tickets, not CDs. Muscians make N O T H I N G on album royalties after the label takes out their cut and other various fees. Musicians make money on concert ticket sales... and guess how they build enough interest in their music to have enough fans pay $~50 per head to watch them live. They do that by having their music distributed by any means possible, radio, CDs, media interviews, music videos, and yes, mp3's being listened to, whether they're acquired legally or not. How much does a musican's bank account grow when a music video is played on MTV or a song is played on the radio? $0.00. His label makes money, but he doesn't, unless he's one of the big, big, big boys like Aerosmith or Metallica that can call the shots with their label. As far as that musician is concerned, an MP3 downloaded might as well be a song played on the radio, because they make nothing on it either way.Pop quiz. How many people have watched a musician interviewed on TV and seen this? The interviewer says "Your album has sold 10 million copies. What have you done with all that money?" The musician responds with "Really? Hmm.... glad someone's making money on all those CDs. It sure isn't me." Downloading music for free is a copyright violation, but please realize the artist is winning, not losing when that happens. People are interested in their music, and they get the same amount of money whether it's bought or stolen. That amount is 0 either way.

[nlinecomputers]

I can't feel real sorry for the artists. They were stupid enough to sign the contracts. It not like they are sheep. Enough of them act like sheep so that it makes it hard on those who have more then 4 brain cells and can see a con job and refuse to sign. There are small independent labels. And if some of the big boys who CAN dictate some terms would stand up for the little guys who can't things might change. And Santa Claus might bring me a present too for Christmas.

[Prelude76]

Congress shall have the power ...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Why a limted right? Why not lifetime or for ever? Because the framers of the Constitution felt that ideas belonged to everyone but reconized that people need some method of compensation to provide a means to drive that creativity for the common good.

it's funny though how many people are confused by copyright. (not saying you are, nline. just quoting your thread so i dont repeat some sentences)here is a good article i found recently regarding copyrights. please read it, and judge for yourself what to think. i think it's silly seeing how americans go nuts whenever their right to own a gun is touched or altered, yet have no problems rewriting their constitution if it means MGM or AOL TIme Warner or Disney will make more money doing so. please read it:

In National Review, John Bloom puts the same idea this way:    Whoever turned "copy right" into one word had to be a lawyer. We don't say "freespeechright" or "gunright" or "assemblyright" or "religionright."    As a result, 99 percent of the public thinks that a copyright is some kind of formal legal document. They think you have to go get it, or protect it, or defend it, or preserve it, or buy it, or hire a lawyer to make sure you have it.    On the contrary, it's simply a right, like all our other rights, and it goes like this: Whoever creates something that has never been created before has the exclusive right to copy it.    It's not the person who registers it with the Library of Congress. It's the person who does it first. Just the act of creation makes the right kick in.    Unlike other rights, though, this one is transferable. You can sell your copyright, license your copyright, or give your copyright away. What's most often done is that you let a big company--say, a book publisher--use the copyright for a specific period of time, in return for money, and at the end of that period the right reverts back to you.    One other difference: This is a right with a specific term.    The Founding Fathers wanted that term to be 14 years, with an additional 14 years if the author [was] still alive. After 28 years, they figured you'd had your chance to exploit your creation, and now it belonged to the nation at large. That way we would never end up with a system of hereditary privilege, similar to the printers guilds of Renaissance England, who tied up rights to dead authors and tightly controlled what could or could not be printed and who could or could not use literary material.    In America, land of free ideas as well as free people, this would never happen, they said.    Well, it's happened. It's happened because for years now Congress has allowed it to happen. We now have an exact replica of the medieval Stationers' Company, which controlled the English copyrights, only its names today are Disney, Bertelsmann, and AOL Time Warner. The big media companies, holding the copyrights of dead authors, have said, in effect, that Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were wrong and that we should go back to the aristocratic system of hereditary ownership, granting copyrights in perpetuity. To effect this result, they've liberally greased the palms of Congressmen in the form of campaign contributions--and it's worked...

[Marsden11]

Interesting opinion... but in the end just an opinion. I read the opinion you posted; please read the law...WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,†including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;To prepare derivative works based upon the work;To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; andIn the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, “Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.â€It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.WHO CAN CLAIM COPYRIGHTCopyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a "work made for hire" as:(1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as: a contribution to a collective work a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work a translation a supplementary work a compilation an instructional text a test answer material for a test an atlas if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire....The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially with the author of the contribution.Two General PrinciplesMere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright. Minors may claim copyright, but state laws may regulate the business dealings involving copyrights owned by minors. For information on relevant state laws, consult an attorney.WHAT WORKS ARE PROTECTED?Copyright protects "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words dramatic works, including any accompanying music pantomimes and choreographic works pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works motion pictures and other audiovisual works sound recordings architectural works These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most "compilations" may be registered as "literary works"; maps and architectural plans may be registered as "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."WHAT IS NOT PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT?Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contentsIdeas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustrationWorks consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)HOW TO SECURE A COPYRIGHTCopyright Secured Automatically upon CreationThe way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration." Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.PUBLICATIONPublication is no longer the key to obtaining federal copyright as it was under the Copyright Act of 1909. However, publication remains important to copyright owners.The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:"Publication" is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.NOTE: Before 1978, federal copyright was generally secured by the act of publication with notice of copyright, assuming compliance with all other relevant statutory conditions. U. S. works in the public domain on January 1, 1978, (for example, works published without satisfying all conditions for securing federal copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909) remain in the public domain under the 1976 Copyright Act. Certain foreign works originally published without notice had their copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Request Circular 38b and see the "Notice of Copyright" section of this publication for further information.Federal copyright could also be secured before 1978 by the act of registration in the case of certain unpublished works and works eligible for ad interim copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act automatically extends to full term (section 304 sets the term) copyright for all works, including those subject to ad interim copyright if ad interim registration has been made on or before June 30, 1978.A further discussion of the definition of "publication" can be found in the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. The legislative reports define "to the public" as distribution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents. The reports state that the definition makes it clear that the sale of phonorecords constitutes publication of the underlying work, for example, the musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied in a phonorecord. The reports also state that it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.Publication is an important concept in the copyright law for several reasons: Works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. See discussion on "Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States."Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner that are set forth in sections 107 through 121 of the law.The year of publication may determine the duration of copyright protection for anonymous and pseudonymous works (when the author's identity is not revealed in the records of the Copyright Office) and for works made for hire.Deposit requirements for registration of published works differ from those for registration of unpublished works. See discussion on "Registration Procedures."When a work is published, it may bear a notice of copyright to identify the year of publication and the name of the copyright owner and to inform the public that the work is protected by copyright. Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk loss of copyright protection. See discussion on "Notice of Copyright" below.NOTICE OF COPYRIGHTThe use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular 38b.The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether copies of works first published with notice before March 1, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must bear the copyright notice.Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant's interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504©(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible CopiesThe notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.Example: © 2002 John Doe The "C in a circle" notice is used only on "visually perceptible copies." Certain kinds of works--for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works--may be fixed not in "copies" but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are "phonorecords" and not "copies," the "C in a circle" notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.Form of Notice for Phonorecords of Sound Recordings** Sound recordings are defined in the law as "works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work." Common examples include recordings of music, drama, or lectures. A sound recording is not the same as a phonorecord. A phonorecord is the physical object in which works of authorship are embodied. The word "phonorecord" includes cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r. p. m. disks, as well as other formats.The notice for phonorecords embodying a sound recording should contain all the following three elements:1. The symbol (the letter P in a circle); and2. The year of first publication of the sound recording; and3. The name of the owner of copyright in the sound recording, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. If the producer of the sound recording is named on the phonorecord label or container and if no other name appears in conjunction with the notice, the producer's name shall be considered a part of the notice.Example: 2002 A. B. C. Records Inc. NOTE: Since questions may arise from the use of variant forms of the notice, you may wish to seek legal advice before using any form of the notice other than those given here. Position of NoticeThe copyright notice should be affixed to copies or phonorecords in such a way as to "give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright." The three elements of the notice should ordinarily appear together on the copies or phonorecords or on the phonorecord label or container. The Copyright Office has issued regulations concerning the form and position of the copyright notice in the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR Section 201.20). For more information, request Circular 3, "Copyright Notice."Publications Incorporating U. S. Government WorksWorks by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection. For works published on and after March 1, 1989, the previous notice requirement for works consisting primarily of one or more U. S. Government works has been eliminated. However, use of a notice on such a work will defeat a claim of innocent infringement as previously described provided the notice also includes a statement that identifies either those portions of the work in which copyright is claimed or those portions that constitute U. S. Government material.Example: © 2002 Jane Brown. Copyright claimed in Chapters 7-10, exclusive of U. S. Government mapsCopies of works published before March 1, 1989, that consist primarily of one or more works of the U. S. Government should have a notice and the identifying statement.Unpublished WorksThe author or copyright owner may wish to place a copyright notice on any unpublished copies or phonorecords that leave his or her control. Example: Unpublished work © 2002 Jane DoeOmission of the Notice and Errors in NoticeThe 1976 Copyright Act attempted to ameliorate the strict consequences of failure to include notice under prior law. It contained provisions that set out specific corrective steps to cure omissions or certain errors in notice. Under these provisions, an applicant had 5 years after publication to cure omission of notice or certain errors. Although these provisions are technically still in the law, their impact has been limited by the amendment making notice optional for all works published on and after March 1, 1989. For further information, request Circular 3, "Copyright Notice." HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURESWorks Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That DateThese works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a, "Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHTAny or all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request Circular 12, "Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents."Termination of TransfersUnder the previous law, the copyright in a work reverted to the author, if living, or if the author was not living, to other specified beneficiaries, provided a renewal claim was registered in the 28th year of the original term.* The present law drops the renewal feature except for works already in the first term of statutory protection when the present law took effect. Instead, the present law permits termination of a grant of rights after 35 years under certain conditions by serving written notice on the transferee within specified time limits.*The copyright in works eligible for renewal on or after June 26, 1992, will vest in the name of the renewal claimant on the effective date of any renewal registration made during the 28th year of the original term. Otherwise, the renewal copyright will vest in the party entitled to claim renewal as of December 31st of the 28th year.For works already under statutory copyright protection before 1978, the present law provides a similar right of termination covering the newly added years that extended the former maximum term of the copyright from 56 to 95 years. For further information, request Circulars 15a and 15t.INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONThere is no such thing as an "international copyright" that will automatically protect an author's writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. For further information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations with the United States, request Circular 38a, "International Copyright Relations of the United States."COPYRIGHT REGISTRATIONIn general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following: Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, request Publication No. 563 "How to Protect Your Intellectual Property Right," from: U.S. Customs Service, P.O. Box 7404, Washington, D.C. 20044. See the U.S. Customs Service Website at www.customs.gov for online publications. Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.The above is from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wciIt is not my opinion nor the opinion of anyone... it is just the law. It does not matter what the founding father thought, nor wanted, nor intended. They are all long dead. Congress has over the years changed the law as they saw fit. If you don't like the law and want to change it then run for office or vote for canidates that think like you do.The law says I can't go around killing people... dang! So I live with it. I'm not saying it is right nor just... but I must live within its bounds. If we all decied that was a bad idea... then we would have nothing more than anarchy!What is my opioion? File swaping of protected content electronically is against the law. I can live with that.

[Prelude76]

come on now! comparing copyright laws to murder? going a bit too far on that.and you missed the whole point of my post. i'm not saying copyright is bad. i'm not saying copyright should be abolished. i was trying to show that copyright used to be a 'right', not a 'law', in the US Constitution. 14 years only, 28 if author was alive. it was never intended to be sold, traded, and otherwise treated like 'real' property. it was designed so authors made money, and then it became free to public use. the entire law you posted was the ammendment to the copyright laws in 1976. its been ammended before, and this past year ammended again. they are adding more and more 'transfer' and 'selling' rights to the law, and extending the period. prior to 1976, it was already bumped up to 50 years protection past death of author, almost double was ORIGINAL copyright was for. and in 1976, when copyright was soon to expire for Disney and some Hollywood producers, they changed the law for more extension , i think 100 years. and GW Bush, the paid sheep of the media giants, extended it again last year, i think its now 150 years of copyright past death. so the whole point of not having generations of generations owning work and making a class society is now null and void. so in short, no, i do not support laws that were passed by lawmen that were bribed by media giants. and no, copyrights should not be passed or transfered or sold. just lent out to publishers by the artists.p.s.- the quote i posted was NOT from some anti-RIAA article. it was an article that was trying to show how bad copyright is getting, if you have a unix copyright traded and sold back and forth between numerous companies, and the last company (SCO) goes and files lawsuit for copyright infringement when they had so little to do with the creation of Unix.