Searching \ for '[OT] Copyright' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=copyright
Search entire site for: 'Copyright'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Copyright'
2005\02\15@071951 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
Good information on copyright with particular reference to internet

       http://www.templetons.com/brad/copyright.html

10 (actually 11) big myths about copyright explaimed (same man)

       http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html


       RM

__________________________________


Here's the headings.
I've included a small amount of text from #3 as it is frequently
mis-reported on the web..


1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."

False. Nothing modern is in the public domain anymore unless the owner
explicitly puts it in the public domain

4) "My posting was just fair use!"
5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has
that name copyrighted!"
6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new
work belongs to me."
7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"

2005\02\15@083352 by Aza D. Oberman

flavicon
face
<Russell McMahon dropped a few links to a copyright site>

For those who are interested in US copyright a watershed case has worked its
way up to the US Supreme Court.  The following link is to a thoughtful
article

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050215.html

At the risk of being glib, this is the "son of Napster" case and attempts to
label peer-to-peer file sharing as a sort of hi-tech burglary tool useful
mainly for copyright violations.

This then raises the age old engineering ethics question: Who commits the
crime?  The person who devises a tool useful for crime (nuclear bombs,
lockpicks, slidehammers, encryption, biological agents, telephones) or the
person who uses it criminally?

Win Wiencke

2005\02\15@140831 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
I can't wait for someone to sue me because I archive the piclist posts...

...If anybody wants their post removed from the archive, let me know?

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2005\02\15@155427 by Aza D. Oberman

flavicon
face

<Russell McMahon posted links from a blogger/publisher which said among
other things the following are myths>

> > 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."

Oh dear, calling that a myth must be part of the patriotic lawyer's relief
act.  Imagine being on a jury and listening to someone saying "Oh sure I
could have put readers on notice but I didn't bother."  The letter of
"legal" clashes with the common sense of "equitable."

It's a bit like saying "I let the other driver hit me because I had the
right-of-way and didn't have to try to avoid the accident -- now make the
other driver pay up."  Or the ever popular, "I'm so sorry your toddler
drowned in my swimming pool, but a fence isn't necessary because your child
was committing the crime of trespassing."  Both of those arguments rarely
cut the legal cheese in practice.

Judges and juries are not machines, and it's always a difficult argument to
ask them to hew to the letter of a law when the plantiff didn't bother to
give notice.

When intellectual property can be labeled, do it.  If it ever comes down to
litigation under US or English Common law you are in that much stronger a
position.

Just a thought.

Aza Oberman

2005\02\15@161929 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > > 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
>
> Oh dear, calling that a myth must be part of the patriotic lawyer's relief
> act.  Imagine being on a jury and listening to someone saying "Oh sure I
> could have put readers on notice but I didn't bother."  The letter of
> "legal" clashes with the common sense of "equitable."

Sorry, but that's the way the copyright law reads in the US and Europe.

If you don't have a proper notice then (in the US at least) one can only
recover direct damages; with the proper notice one can sue for more.

Whatever gave you the idea that the law had to make sense?  :)
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Polititions and civilations come and
spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com     ! go but the engineers and machinists
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress

2005\02\15@165542 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Sorry, but that's the way the copyright law reads in the US
> and Europe.
>
> If you don't have a proper notice then (in the US at least)
> one can only
> recover direct damages; with the proper notice one can sue for more.

At least in my country (Netherlands) the (c) marker or another notice
has no legal effect at all. The act of publication is what creates the
copyright, nothing else is needed.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\02\15@172210 by Robert Rolf

picon face
Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

>>Sorry, but that's the way the copyright law reads in the US
>>and Europe.
>>
>>If you don't have a proper notice then (in the US at least)
>>one can only
>>recover direct damages; with the proper notice one can sue for more.
>
>
> At least in my country (Netherlands) the (c) marker or another notice
> has no legal effect at all. The act of publication is what creates the
> copyright, nothing else is needed.

So the act of 'loading code' is publishing?

The US judge in the chess game lawsuit ruled that because the
copyright notice was not readable by a human, it had no effect.

Most copyright laws are written with the assumption that
the 'work' is perceived by humans. Since machines cannot 'perceive'
a work, then by inference there is no copywrong when executing
a copy of the binary code. Hopefully that has changed in the
intervening decades, but I'm sure that some countries still
have judges who are not very 'enlightened'.

By using the copyright mark, you cover the issue as best you
can since some copywrong laws may still require the mark (Bern
convention on copyright??).

Robert

2005\02\15@173457 by Aza D. Oberman

flavicon
face
> Whatever gave you the idea that the law had to make sense?  :)

an LLM

Aza

2005\02\15@183903 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050215.html

> ... and attempts to
> label peer-to-peer file sharing as a sort of hi-tech burglary tool
> useful
> mainly for copyright violations.

Regardless of other arguments, isn't that the main use of it on the
internet?

> This then raises the age old engineering ethics question: Who
> commits the
> crime?  The person who devises a tool useful for crime (nuclear
> bombs,
> lockpicks, slidehammers, encryption, biological agents, telephones)
> or the
> person who uses it criminally?

And you get the same old answer. Both. to whatever degree is
appropriate in a given case.


   RM

2005\02\15@183917 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>> Whatever gave you the idea that the law had to make sense?  :)

> an LLM

Just goes to show :-)


       RM

2005\02\16@013506 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:08 AM, James Newtons Massmind wrote:
>
> ...If anybody wants their post removed from the archive, let me know?
>
>
There's a defacto standard email header (used primarily on usenet,
as far as I know) that's supposed to prevent archives from retaining
the message.  Do you know if the piclist archives support it?
(something like "X-no-archive: yes", but of course you can't look
in the archives for a message that has it :-)

BillW

2005\02\16@015656 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> So the act of 'loading code' is publishing?

No. Publishing is 'making available'.

> The US judge in the chess game lawsuit ruled that because the
> copyright notice was not readable by a human, it had no effect.

AFAIK in the context of Dutch law - if this were the judge's opinion - a
copyright mark would not change that.

> Most copyright laws are written with the assumption that
> the 'work' is perceived by humans. Since machines cannot 'perceive'
> a work, then by inference there is no copywrong when executing
> a copy of the binary code.

AFAIK that interpretation is not (or no longer) used in my country.

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


2005\02\16@020404 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> There's a defacto standard email header (used primarily on usenet,
> as far as I know) that's supposed to prevent archives from retaining
> the message.  Do you know if the piclist archives support it?
> (something like "X-no-archive: yes", but of course you can't look
> in the archives for a message that has it :-)

Of course you can.

If there are no instances it has it
On the other hand, if there are no instances it hasn't got it.


       RM





:-)

2005\02\16@042556 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>(something like "X-no-archive: yes", but of course you
>can't look in the archives for a message that has it :-)

But how would you set that up, especially on one of the M$ products.

2005\02\16@080023 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Alan B. Pearce wrote:

>>(something like "X-no-archive: yes", but of course you
>>can't look in the archives for a message that has it :-)
>
> But how would you set that up, especially on one of the M$ products.

Outlook Express: www.helpwithwindows.com/windows98/oe-24.html

2005\02\16@085344 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:55:40 +0100, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:

> > Sorry, but that's the way the copyright law reads in the US
> > and Europe.
> >
> > If you don't have a proper notice then (in the US at least)
> > one can only
> > recover direct damages; with the proper notice one can sue for more.
>
> At least in my country (Netherlands) the (c) marker or another notice
> has no legal effect at all. The act of publication is what creates the
> copyright, nothing else is needed.

In the UK too.  The Copyright notice does make sure that people know it's yours, but it makes no difference to
the existance of the copyright.  And there's certainly no difference in the damages you can claim (they amount
to the loss you have suffered, and no more, the same as any other damages claim).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\02\16@095441 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> > > If you don't have a proper notice then (in the US at least)
> > > one can only
> > > recover direct damages; with the proper notice one can sue for more.
> >
> > At least in my country (Netherlands) the (c) marker or another notice
> > has no legal effect at all. The act of publication is what creates the
> > copyright, nothing else is needed.
>
> In the UK too.  The Copyright notice does make sure that people know it's yours, but it makes no difference to
> the existance of the copyright.  And there's certainly no difference in the damages you can claim (they amount
> to the loss you have suffered, and no more, the same as any other damages claim).

Ahhh. In the US if you don't put the copyright notice you are still protected
but you can only claim specific damages (proven lost sales). With the mark
you can also claim punative damages. At least that was how it was several
years ago when Penn State employees were inundated with this sort of
information.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! Polititions and civilations come and
.....jayKILLspamspam@spam@sprucegrove.com     ! go but the engineers and machinists
http://enerd.ws/robots/ ! make progress

2005\02\16@103430 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Robert,

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:22:17 -0700, Robert Rolf wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Not sure what you mean here - running it on a computer?  No, but making it available to others is publishing.  
The owner doing so is legal, unauthorised others doing it breaches copyright.

> The US judge in the chess game lawsuit ruled that because the
> copyright notice was not readable by a human, it had no effect.

US law applies only in the US!  In the UK, for example, it has never been necessary to have a copyright notice
for copyright to exist.

> Most copyright laws are written with the assumption that
> the 'work' is perceived by humans. Since machines cannot 'perceive'
> a work, then by inference there is no copywrong when executing
> a copy of the binary code. Hopefully that has changed in the
> intervening decades, but I'm sure that some countries still
> have judges who are not very 'enlightened'.

A computer (or any other machine) cannot break the law - the person running the computer, giving it the
instruction to run the code, may.  Setting the cruise control on a car above the speed limit is not the car's
fault! :-)

> By using the copyright mark, you cover the issue as best you
> can since some copywrong laws may still require the mark (Bern
> convention on copyright??).

I don't believe the Bern Convention does say this - this is the part that comes closest: "In order that the
author of a literary or artistic work protected by this Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, be regarded as such, and consequently be entitled to institute infringement proceedings in the
countries of the Union, it shall be sufficient for his name to appear on the work in the usual manner."
(Article 15, Paragraph 1).  The "usual manner" for software might be regarded as having "Author: Joe Bloggs"
in the source code.  Or if it's downloadable, perhaps on the web page where the download is available.  And
note that it's referring to recognising the author and assigning the copyright to them, not establishing
copyright itself.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\02\16@110046 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:35:14 -0500 (EST), D. Jay Newman wrote:

> Ahhh. In the US if you don't put the copyright notice you are still protected
> but you can only claim specific damages (proven lost sales). With the mark
> you can also claim punative damages.

Indeed, but there's no such thing as punitive damages here.  In the UK you aren't allowed to benefit from a
damages claim, just to redress what you lost.  If someone is criminally negligent (say they fail to make a
railway track safe, causing a derailment) the victims can claim actual damages, but any punishment is a
criminal matter and any fine imposed doesn't go to them.  

Sometimes I think the legal system here should look more towards the victim than it does - say if someone
breaks into your house, as well as going to prison they should have to pay for the damage and loss that they
caused, automatically, but that's not the way it works.

Cheers,




Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\02\16@112614 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Feb 16, 2005, at 8:00 AM, Howard Winter wrote:

>> In the US if you don't put the copyright notice you are still
>> protected but you can only claim specific damages . With the
>> mark you can also claim punative damages.
>
> Indeed, but there's no such thing as punitive damages here.

Ah.  I was wondering whether the part of the US law that "didn't
make sense" was on the other side; that by including the mark you
could suddenly claim (arbitrary?) "punitive" damages.  Certainly
there have been cases where the punitive damages claimed by
defendants have been ... extremely large (not necessarily in
copyright cases.  Other lawsuits.)  Of course, that's why lawyers
take the cases; they're paid out of the winnings...

BillW

2005\02\16@113600 by ThePicMan

flavicon
face

>US law applies only in the US!

President Bush thinks not so!

2005\02\16@133015 by John Pearson
flavicon
face
If your code displays a message on an I/O device, a digital readout or CRT
screen, is that considered "(C) marked"?


{Original Message removed}

2005\02\16@154702 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:26:11 -0800, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>...<
> Certainly
> there have been cases where the punitive damages claimed by
> defendants have been ... extremely large (not necessarily in
> copyright cases.  Other lawsuits.)  Of course, that's why lawyers
> take the cases; they're paid out of the winnings...

Ah, that can't happen here - lawyers have to work for agreed rates, with no "percentage of the winnings"
aspect to it.  I think the ethic goes something like: they should work just as hard and do their best for
every case, regardless of any financial incentive.

Non-lawyers can though - there are some companies of Claims Assessors (known as "Ambulance Chasers" in the
trade!) who will assist you in getting "what you deserve" for a fee which is result-related, but lawyers
aren't even allowed to do things "no win, no fee" (unless it's changed recently).

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


2005\02\16@161553 by Peter L. Peres

picon face


On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, James Newtons Massmind wrote:

> I can't wait for someone to sue me because I archive the piclist posts...
>
> ...If anybody wants their post removed from the archive, let me know?

imho don't beg for lightning. You live in the wrong country to do that
imho. It may be willingly granted some day soon (I hope it won't be
however).

Peter

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2005 , 2006 only
- Today
- New search...