"They are both rights guaranteed by the constitution."
Copyrights are not guaranteed by the Constitution. It only states that Congress has the authority to implement a copyright regime. There is no requirement that Congress actually do so -- just as Congress is not required to legalize privateering even though the Constitution empowers them to.
It doesn't say much for your legal department if they aren't competent enough to fend off a claim that "unlimited data" somehow qualifies as intellectual property.
Think about it for a sec. If "unlimited data" qualifies for IP protection then were some other company to ever have previously offered it, AT&T themselves would be prohibited from legally doing so lest they infringe on that other company's IP. If such trivial concepts are protected by copyrights/patents, AT&T has bigger things to worry about than some suggestion letters tendered by satisfied customers.
When they find a live one, they will move them off Twitter, and move them to an end-to-end encrypted messaging app,” Comey said. He said without a court order, the FBI could not read such encrypted message traffic.
Without a court order, the FBI should not be reading message traffic whether it's encrypted or not.
The 512(i)(1)(A) policy is to suspend repeat infringers -- not repeat "targets of infringement allegations". Were there any court rulings that these postings were actually instances of copyright infringement?
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?
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".