Along the same lines as this annotated code, it is not uncommon for courts at all levels to reference "Nimmer On Copyright" for interpretation and analysis of copyright law. This treatise costs about $4000 on Lexis/Nexis and it does not appear to be available in my local (Michigan) library system.
As we've discussed in the past, the entire "problem" of orphan works is really a problem created by the automatic application of copyright, rather than requiring registration ("formalities.")
I don't see the distinction. If copyright protection is not to be "automatic" then what "manual" mechanism would be used -- other than registration -- to identify that the author desires protection apply to a specific work?
Re: TOO MANY TO CHECK! -- If that excuse is valid for Megaupload, then it's valid for WGBH.
By the way, this is an example of monetizing the public domain that should be explicitly outlawed in statute: for no more effort than uploading valuable content made long prior, this whoever nor Youtube shouldn't get a cent, but should pay to public treasury.
You forgot to provide the link to the website where you are hosting the video and ensuring that the public gets access to their valuable content.
A "good faith belief" that a posted video is infringing should at a minimum involve actually viewing the work. It would be nice to see some kickback on this issue by both Mr Malamud and Youtube suing for damages under DMCA's §512.
The definitions in Section 101 are just that, definitions. Defining what should be considered a "computer program" says nothing with respect to the actual jurisprudence of copyright presented in subsequent sections.
In fact, nowhere in Title 17 is it explicitly asserted that "computer programs" are protected; such a conclusion is implicated from §102(a) and their being considered "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression". (Also, their copyrightability is attested by limitations being set forth in §117.)
On a side note, the term "software" does not appear anywhere in Title 17 (other than as part of the name of a cited amendment).
It is not particularly relevant whether or not an API satisfies the §101 definition for a "computer program" (or for "software"), as long as it qualifies as an "original work of authorship".
It is an allusion to Orwell's 1984 wherein the names of the Ministries are the opposite of their actual function: the Ministry of Peace wages war, the Ministry of Plenty rations food, the Ministry of Truth rewrites history, and the Ministry of Love tortures people.
Alternate problem - other governments will want their magic key, too. What then?
Director Comey addressed this in his recent statements before Congressional Committees by assuring that only the service providers would retain the backdoored-encrypted data, not the government. Presumably these corporations would not be compelled to respond to warrants from other nations, but would be for US-issued warrants.
But then, as Jamie Zawinski would say, "now you have two problems".
Re: Re: The original interpretation was correct...
In order to prevent people communicating in private, it would be necessary to ban the use of any encryption that hasn't been backdoored; otherwise it would always be possible to add an extra layer of encryption to one's messages (using Enigmail or somesuch).
Re: Re: Reading the actualy blog post gives a different picture
While it may be a professional courtesy, and he MAY have broken that professional courtesy, she has made accusations of theft in her commentary,...
No, she did not. She did not even, as Mike Masnick claims, make accusations of plagiarism. She used the subjunctive mood to express that since the story was not fiction, it was therefore not plagiarized.
... and certainly expressed ownership in the story.
All she did was express that she was the one who initially broke the story. Or do you think that all those news outlets who trumpet that they were the first to break a story also claim ownership of the story?
Breaking a story is a meaningful accomplishment when reporting news (the name "news" should serve as something of a giveaway), and worthy of recognition separate from any notion of ownership or copyright. The only impression I got from reading her article was her disappointment at not receiving that recognition. Whether she is deserving of being credited for breaking the story, I can not say, but any inferences that she was making claims beyond this are in my opinion a misreading of her words.