Copyright legislation versus the disablity discrimination act?
969683
Order it on tape or CD
867055
The definition you suggest is 'off the mark'.\n\nHere's some info that should help:\n\nCopyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. At its most general, it is literally "the right to copy" an original creation. In most cases, these rights are of limited duration. The symbol for copyright is © (Unicode U+00A9), and in some jurisdictions may alternatively be written as either (c) or (C).\n\nCopyright may subsist in a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms or "works". These include poems, theses, plays, and other literary works, movies, choreographic works (dances, ballets, etc.), musical compositions, audio recordings, paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs, software, radio and television broadcasts of live and other performances, and, in some jurisdictions, industrial designs. Copyright is a type of intellectual property; designs or industrial designs may be a separate or overlapping form of intellectual property in some jurisdictions.\n\n///
1175809
You can do this at the US Copyright Office – see the last 3 links in the source box. The application is fairly simple & the cost is $30 per application (it will rise to $45 by July 1).\n\nHope that helps! I wish you much success & happiness in all your ventures!
168630
In general, yes, it bans freedom of speech.  If, however, a company (say a privately owned nightclub) refuses to play a song within its doors because it does not like the messages in the song, the club's owners are within *their* rights to do so.  Does that ban creativity?  Not really, since the club owners aren't telling the artist that he/she can never play it or record it anywhere.  They aren't silencing the artist, they're merely not supporting them.  Now if the government showed up at the doors of the artist and forbid them from having anything ever to do with the song, that would be spitting on freedom of speech.  There's the difference.
709317
It's actually 106(3).  It's a federal law that has to do with copyright infringements.  Anything that you think of while at work belongs to your employer.
54644
I'd go to Microsoft to be sure I am not infringing on a copyright.  \n\nIt is NOT TRUE that you can use what you find elsewhere as long as you give credit to where you found the graphic.  (Links 1 & 2) That is a very serious misconception that artists/writers and copyright owners have been trying to disabuse people of for ages so please ignore the one person who gave that answer.  They are, sadly, misinformed and advocating breaking the law in a manner that can be financially costly. (Link 3)\n\nBy the way, THANK YOU for asking!  As an artist, I am very, very grateful for people like you who take the time to find graphics that are, indeed, free --- instead of just assuming they can be used.  You're the best!
425456
Ah, first of all, you should contact the ACLU. Collect all the information that you can! Turn it over to the ACLU. You should also contact your local government representatives about what is going on. The more people you get involved, the better your chances. If I knew more, I could tell you more.... However, if you have evidence of such discrimination, by all means use it.
436841
Anyone can hold copyrights, and religious entities frequently do. For instance, various translations of the Bible are copyrighted, along with the extra material that goes along with various editions. Tax exemption and copyrights are unrelated.
346790
Your question appears malformed. The 1st Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, protects individuals "from" particular government action. It does not punish individuals for violations of its provisions.\n\nA person who distributes pornographic materials via the mail is protected by the 1st Amendment freedom of expression from being punished by the government for doing so. \n\nContent vs. Conduct.\n\nGenerally, the government can reasonably regulate the time, place and manner by which expression is conducted as long as the regulations are facially neutral and apply to all expression equally. Furthermore, the regulations must serve a compelling governmental interest and must use the least restrictive means available. \n\nIn the scenario of using the USPS for distribution of pornographic material, vs. other materials, a regulation that purports to regulate only a certain type of content, rather than conduct, would presumptively violate the 1st Amendment and would be declared unconstitutional.\n\nHowever, if for example the only requirement were that the materials be wrapped in brown paper so as to not disclose their content to any inadvertant observer, such as a minor child, prior to reaching the intended recipient, such a regulation would likely be upheld, since it does not impact the actual content of the expression, but only the manner in which it is distributed, and it is narrowly drawn to serve the compelling interest in protecting minors from exposure to pornography.\n\nObscenity.\n\nAnother issue is whether or not the content itself is "obscene" and therefore prohibited, regardless of its method of distribution. Under the Miller test, an expression is obscene if (1) it promotes prurient interests, and (2) it is patently offensive to the local community, and (3) it is lacking any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value using a national reasonable person standard. So, if the material being distributed is so completely vulgar and useless as to satisfy all three of the above tests, then the government could not only prohibit its distribution, it could prohibit it's manufacture.
919558
In the US, copyright law is found in Title 17 of the US Code.\n\n17 USC 506 makes it a crime to violate federal copyright laws. Scanning a book without having the legal permission to make that electronic copy would almost certainly constitute a copyright violation, making the person who did it culpable. Then there are conspiracy and soliciation charges for someone who asked another person or agreed with another person to break the law.\n\nCopyright law is not something to ignore. It's just not worth it.
348839
It's called Fair Use. Look here:\nhttp://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/
1061698
You can do this at the US Copyright Office. The application is fairly simple & the cost is $30 per application (it will likely rise to $45 by July 1).\n\nI posted direct links at the US Copyright Office as well as some handy resource sites.\n\nHope that helps! I wish you much success & happiness in all your ventures!
472715
Paying for the music gives you personal rights to its use. Generally, that doesn't give you any rights to redistribute it to others. \n\nAs to the 8-seconds, it sounds like you're talking about application of the Fair Use provisions of Copyright law. These are tricky, and it's always a fuzzy area what constitutes Fair Use. Most courts still haven't come down with a bright-line rule on this issue.\n\nAnecdote: I did something similar a while back, for the equivalent of a blog (before blogs were called that). I contacted the legal/licensing department of whatever TV network or studio produced the show. Then I explained briefly that I wanted to use small clips of the music for a non-profit commentary on the show and asked what the licensing requirements are.\n\nThere is also another angle you can try. If you are broadcasting your podcast, you might be able to qualify for the mandatory broadcast licensing provisions of the copyright code. Again, this is a complex area of law and you should do a lot of research (and/or find an attorney) before trying to claim this as a defense.
407024
Not yet. But if the senate passes this bill, it could be even illegal to stream music on the net. If the RIAA succeeds in doing that, fortunately only music under a Creative Commons license will be available : )
896232
there are copyright laws, but the problem lies in enforcing them.
362757
No. You are creating a backup copy in case the hard copy is damaged. *wink, wink* Seriously though, as long as you're not making it publicly available I don't think that would be considered copyright infringement.
649784
The US copyright law is a law to protect people's work of art in variety of types for not to be infringed by other people.  Log on this  website: http://www.copyright.gov/ and you can learn more.