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".
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).
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.
As an example, ripping a game or DVD or whatever that has DRM, and putting it on your own hard drive would appear to be okay. What if you upload it to a "backup" service? What if that "Backup" service allows others to access you files? At what point did it becoming infringing?
It's quite simple. If at some point the activity were infringing then at that point the circumvention (performed at an earlier point) would be in breech of 1201. While a bit awkward (but not without legal precedent), it makes more sense then prohibiting a legal activity based upon speculation that a later illegal action might possibly occur.
The group went beyond making there voice heard, and refusing to attend the showing, and tried to get the showing stopped, and prevent others from seeing the film.
So signing a petition asking that those who decided to show the film not do so is going too far? What would that make writing a blog article asking that those who sign such petitions not do so? Why should one be considered censorship and the other freedom of speech?
"What about the other students who are just fine with this? They pay tuition too, last I checked. If I was a student there, I wouldn't have a problem with the university showing this movie." And your freedom to voice your opinion about showing the movie should be recognized.
My opinion is that those who made the choice to show this movie showed very poor judgment. The movie was not being presented as a study in filmmaking or to prompt discussion of historical events -- it was chosen as entertainment for a social event "catering to the interests of a diverse student population". As such, it was an extremely poor choice for the program (especially when the university's campus is situated in a region that has the largest Moslem population in America).
Those who made the decision to show this movie have done a disservice to the university, to its "diverse student population", and to its host community. Hopefully in the future their decisions will be less inconsistent with the traditions of the university and the purported ambitions of the Umix program.
The point is that it IS a protest under the statute.
It seems obvious to me that the EFF wasn't filing a protest against the application. They did not serve notice to the patent applicant, they did not use the “Information Disclosure Statement" forms for filing a protest, they did not specify the filing date of the application, they did not declare that this was to be considered a first or subsequent protest, and they gave no indication that they expected their criticism of the application to be incorporated into the patent application's record.
In their submission, they took none of the necessary or recommended steps associated with filing a protest; they were merely responding to a request by the USPTO for public comments on the proposed guidelines and chose to criticize a particular application as an example case.
One of the things I don't understand with regard to Netflix is: last I checked, Netflix hosts their media files on Amazon Web Services, so why is it Netflix that is being blamed for excessive bandwidth usage? I should think it'd be Amazon, if anyone, who is the one directly culpable.