A bit on copyright (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

JohnWarren -> A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 10:13:59 AM)

There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about copyright. This is really surprising since the government provides a lot of clear, well-presented information on its websites like http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp and http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

One of the biggest misapprehensions is that if something appears on the web or if there is no copyright notice on a work, it is somehow fair game. Both are completely false. Copyright exists from the moment words are put in a tangible form and no further action is needed on the part of the copyright holder. The major misunderstanding about webpostings is the belief that they become part of the public domain or quoting them is somehow “fair use.”

Material can become public domain. The most common way for that to happen is for the copyright to expire. For current writings, that takes place 70 years after the death of the author, so if something has appeared for the first time on the web, it’s impossible for it to have an expired copyright. There are websites which specialize in material with expired copyrights like http://www.gutenberg.org/ but they carefully confirm the material is out of copyright. Authors can explicitly put something into the public domain, but this must be explicit and not presumed.

Fair use is very misunderstood. Its main purpose is to allow news media and scholars to comment on published works. The main factors are that one is not allowed to quote the entire work and that the quoted portion be actually used for comment and not simply to present the secondary author’s point.

One particularly mendacious argument for using copyrighted material without permission is that being prevented from doing so somehow impedes the flow of information and ideas. Given that copyright only protects the author’s arrangement of words and that ideas or concepts cannot be copyrighted. This kind of stealing only shows that the infringer lacks the wit to extract the concept from the material and present it in his or her own words.

Given the hyperlink capability of the web, there is little excuse to steal. A writer can easily put in a link to the material that he or she thinks will help the case being presented so the reader can go to the original source.



IceyOne -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 10:22:54 AM)

I totally agree. If you are going to copy something from the web...you HAVE to give credit where credit is due. And if the person who wrote the words, does not want you to 'quote' them somewhere else, it is illegal to do so.



valeca -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 11:06:56 AM)

Dealing with copyright on a daily basis, this issue is something near and dear to my heart. Thank you, Mr. Warren, for posting this.

It's stealing, plain and simple. And if you've posted work belonging to another, even with good intentions, without giving the proper credit, you're no less a thief than the person who breaks into houses. Ignorance is not an excuse...or a defense.

Plagiarism is despicable.

edited for slippery-finger spelling. D'oh.



Chaingang -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 12:15:30 PM)

I personally think copyrights can be good if they are shorter term. The way copyrights have been extended under the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 seems quite wrong to me.

Any intellectual property right is a legal creation. It's not like actually having possession of an apple in your pocket - if you eat the apple it's gone forever in every way that makes owning the apple worthwhile, but it's also in the nature of the apple that it has a point of edible ripeness before it turns to rot. Ideas have a kind of ripeness also - and that's why they get protection by way of copyrights and patent. But just as an apple rots, the moment of ripeness for an idea gives way to a decline in its value. It is at that point that we have decided we would allow ideas previously protected by copyrights and patents to lapse into the public domain where they may be used by one and all.

It is right, just, and fair that previously protected ideas lapse into the public domain - that's quid pro quo, a little protection of a private and exclusive right from society up front becomes a good and a benefit to society as a whole later on.

When you give to the private sector in terms of extended rights to intellectual property, you take from the commons. Where is the quid pro quo? You can't extend rights for Disney corp without stealing from society as a whole to do it. We already held up our end of the bargain by protecting Disney's copyrights for quite some time, this 11th hour extended rights bullshit is immoral.

All thing change. All things die. Copyrights and patents should expire.



Real0ne -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 12:25:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: valeca

Dealing with copyright on a daily basis, this issue is something near and dear to my heart. Thank you, Mr. Warren, for posting this.

It's stealing, plain and simple. And if you've posted work belonging to another, even with good intentions, without giving the proper credit, you're no less a thief than the person who breaks into houses. Ignorance is not an excuse...or a defense.

Plagiarism is despicable.

edited for slippery-finger spelling. D'oh.


Yeh i can surely relate to that! i spent nearly a year writing this software package and where did i find it of all places? a fortune 100 company in their r&d lab! Needless to say i was not happy but did nothing about it because i wound up with a few contracts from them and i just imbedded the cost of the software into the projects!! HAHA of course who knows where else it all is.
r1





Real0ne -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 12:30:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang
When you give to the private sector in terms of extended rights to intellectual property, you take from the commons. Where is the quid pro quo? You can't extend rights for Disney corp without stealing from society as a whole to do it. We already held up our end of the bargain by protecting Disney's copyrights for quite some time, this 11th hour extended rights bullshit is immoral.



i dont really think stealing from society is an appropriate conclusion



Chaingang -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 12:34:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
i dont really think stealing from society is an appropriate conclusion


Reread my first line.

BTW, what's the context here? Who posted what from where?



JohnWarren -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 1:07:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chaingang
Ideas have a kind of ripeness also - and that's why they get protection by way of copyrights and patent.


Ideas cannot be copyrighted. The only thing that is copyrighted is the specific arrangement of words on a page or a specific picture or a specific art work. One is free to take the idea and run with it. One can make a cartoon mouse... just not Mickey. They are free to write a book on BDSM but they must use their own words, not mine.



Misstoyou -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 3:28:33 PM)

Hi John,

Can I quote you? [:)]

I start my seniors on their research projects next week, and I spend a lot of time on paraphrasing, plagerism, and how it *feels* to the writer when his work is stolen, hoping to instill a little empathy in the process.



JohnWarren -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 3:39:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Misstoyou

Hi John,

Can I quote you? [:)]

I start my seniors on their research projects next week, and I spend a lot of time on paraphrasing, plagerism, and how it *feels* to the writer when his work is stolen, hoping to instill a little empathy in the process.


Feel free. Just attribute it to John Warren, Ph.D.



GADomCpl -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/29/2006 7:36:34 PM)

John,
I am currently working on my BS and all of our instructors are very strict when it comes to giving proper credit for all of our work (and for good reason). My job in the Army involves developing the curriculum for several courses that we teach our soldiers, and there to we have to be very careful where we get our information and how we present. I spent many hours on most of my projects just going back over everything and making sure it is documented properly. I completely agree that people should have a form of protection for their works. While I don't agree with all of the laws about it (specificly in the world of computers and software) I think they all serve a purpose.

Troy



Chaingang -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/30/2006 6:52:04 AM)

That's not how it works John. That's how it should work - but so what about that, eh?

In the real world people use copyrighted material any way they see fit.

That's why Disney has built an empire on the work of others: Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood, etc - I mean, you will allow that Disney studios didn't make those fairy tale stories up themselves, yes? I think a guy called Charles Perrault wrote some of them - possibly himself basing his ideas on the work of others. Shakespeare's only possibly original play is "The Tempest" - the rest all have fictive and historical antecedents. How about when some 60-70s band wanted to "borrow" the work of some old bluesman? Was "Travelling Riverside Blues" given appropriate credit by Led Zeppelin the first time they used it? No. Did they use it as they saw fit because they could and had the power of a multinational behind them? Yes - and too fucking bad for the estate of Robert Johnson. BTW, how much money does Keith Richards owe Muddy Waters? How about when Apple sues some company for using "Mac" in their name? Is that just an idea they are suing about or what? I mean some people actually come from parts of the world where "Mc" and "Mac" are actually parts of very old family names. Seems like I recall a famous artisan called Rene Macintosh, but so what about that - now it's some damned corporation's trademarked name. Etc, etc, etc...

So the law is really just a whore available to the highest bidder. Ask your congressperson...

There is no law.



perverseangelic -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/30/2006 8:14:49 AM)

Since we're on the subject and this is the internet

A note about e-mail copywrite:

E-mail is copywrited to the person who wrote it, no matter the circumstance. It is the intellectual property of the writer and missusing it -can- be considered copywrite infringmenet.

HOWEVER copywrite infringment suits can -only- be brought if the intellectual material in question is registered with the copywrite/patent office. Not registering it doesn't negate the copywrite, however it does mean that the owner cannot bring suit for miss-use.

That said, fair use of e-mail -includes- the ability to copy selections from private e-mail and publish them in public forums such as a message board or livejournal as long as the person publishing them is making some kind of comment on them. (Yeah, this is simplified, I know.) That is, as long as you are analyzing/satiricizing/etc and you don't quote the entire e-mail (if it's of reasonable lenghth) you are still covered under fair use.



JohnWarren -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/30/2006 8:35:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GADomCpl

John,
I am currently working on my BS and all of our instructors are very strict when it comes to giving proper credit for all of our work (and for good reason). My job in the Army involves developing the curriculum for several courses that we teach our soldiers, and there to we have to be very careful where we get our information and how we present. I spent many hours on most of my projects just going back over everything and making sure it is documented properly. I completely agree that people should have a form of protection for their works. While I don't agree with all of the laws about it (specificly in the world of computers and software) I think they all serve a purpose.
[\quote]

It's ironic that the courses put put together for those soldiers are one of the few creations that are exempt from copyright protection. But that's how the Government Printing House is set up.



GADomCpl -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/30/2006 7:57:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

It's ironic that the courses put put together for those soldiers are one of the few creations that are exempt from copyright protection. But that's how the Government Printing House is set up.


Actually its kind of interesting you mentioned that. When I was going through my training course on how to develope our classes, we were told that yes the government cannot be sued for misuse, but we can be personally held liable for our work on behalf of the government. Not sure how true that is or not, but still keeps us thinking.

Troy



JohnWarren -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/30/2006 9:27:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GADomCpl


quote:

ORIGINAL: JohnWarren

It's ironic that the courses put put together for those soldiers are one of the few creations that are exempt from copyright protection. But that's how the Government Printing House is set up.


Actually its kind of interesting you mentioned that. When I was going through my training course on how to develope our classes, we were told that yes the government cannot be sued for misuse, but we can be personally held liable for our work on behalf of the government. Not sure how true that is or not, but still keeps us thinking.

Troy


Yike! That seems unfair.... but put on a uniform and not much is fair [laugh]



Saraheli -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/31/2006 4:22:04 PM)

another detail to keep in mind is that the laws are not the same in every country, and to my understanding, it is the laws of the country where the website/forum is actually hosted that are applicable to any material on that site



veronicaofML -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/31/2006 4:36:45 PM)


I start my seniors on their research projects next week, and I spend a lot of time on paraphrasing, plagerism, and how it *feels* to the writer when his work is stolen, hoping to instill a little empathy in the process.
-----------

good thing "I" aint there.
anything "I" do or write or come up with,,,"I" feel is for the betterment of mankind..and i want NO copyrights to anything..

but since so many feel i am idiot..it doesnt matter...right?



cloudboy -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/31/2006 5:53:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: veronicaofML
good thing "I" aint there.
anything "I" do or write or come up with,,,"I" feel is for the betterment of mankind..and i want NO copyrights to anything..

but since so many feel i am idiot..it doesnt matter...right?


That's because you don't have a MASSIVE EGO and insane proprietary expectations in everything you and others might say. There's nothing more cretin than someone misapplying "high and important" principles to inappropriate contexts.

I agree with you, the betterment of mankind comes from the circulation of ideas and texts --- not a crazy need to constantly attribute them or to get "permission to circulate them." In the informal universe of a message board, citing copyright laws is like asking for footnoted references from your coffee house buddies talking politics.

The thrust of copyright law is to protect the pecuniary, proprietary, and intellectual interests of scholars, commerical writers, corporations, and the like. It is foremost, a commercial doctrine, after that there are some ethical considerations ---- but beyond that ---- I would hardly call copyright law NATURAL LAW.

When I post here, I do not think I "own" what I post, no, its out there for the world to see and distribute. So, in many ways, writings and communications are about values. If you view them as "private property," that's one thing, if you view them as "public property," its another.

Here on CM, the TOS clearly indicates that CM participants should not have any expectation of privacy even in their private writings.

>9. PRIVACY

9.1 The site owner does not provide any facility for sending or receiving private or confidential electronic communications. All messages transmitted to the site owner shall be deemed to be readily accessible to the public. Visitors should not use this site to transmit any communication for which the sender intends only the sender and the recipient(s) to read. Notice is hereby given that all messages entered into this site can and may be read by the operators of this service, regardless of whether the operators are the intended recipients of the message(s).<

So, veronica, I like your way here. But if you write a thesis, short story, book of poems, philisophical treatise or some such other thing, well, then I might think it applicable to think of copyrights, but even then, it depends on you.



AAkasha -> RE: A bit on copyright (1/31/2006 6:20:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: veronicaofML
good thing "I" aint there.
anything "I" do or write or come up with,,,"I" feel is for the betterment of mankind..and i want NO copyrights to anything..

but since so many feel i am idiot..it doesnt matter...right?


That's because you don't have a MASSIVE EGO and insane proprietary expectations in everything you and others might say. There's nothing more cretin than someone misapplying "high and important" principles to inappropriate contexts.

I agree with you, the betterment of mankind comes from the circulation of ideas and texts --- not a crazy need to constantly attribute them or to get "permission to circulate them." In the informal universe of a message board, citing copyright laws is like asking for footnoted references from your coffee house buddies talking politics.

The thrust of copyright law is to protect the pecuniary, proprietary, and intellectual interests of scholars, commerical writers, corporations, and the like. It is foremost, a commercial doctrine, after that there are some ethical considerations ---- but beyond that ---- I would hardly call copyright law NATURAL LAW.

When I post here, I do not think I "own" what I post, no, its out there for the world to see and distribute. So, in many ways, writings and communications are about values. If you view them as "private property," that's one thing, if you view them as "public property," its another.

Here on CM, the TOS clearly indicates that CM participants should not have any expectation of privacy even in their private writings.

>9. PRIVACY

9.1 The site owner does not provide any facility for sending or receiving private or confidential electronic communications. All messages transmitted to the site owner shall be deemed to be readily accessible to the public. Visitors should not use this site to transmit any communication for which the sender intends only the sender and the recipient(s) to read. Notice is hereby given that all messages entered into this site can and may be read by the operators of this service, regardless of whether the operators are the intended recipients of the message(s).<

So, veronica, I like your way here. But if you write a thesis, short story, book of poems, philisophical treatise or some such other thing, well, then I might think it applicable to think of copyrights, but even then, it depends on you.


When you are talking about "free" content being stolen on the Internet, as an author (with no aspirations to make millions off of anything I have ever written), I'd ask you to look at it another way.

If you had a free web site for several years and found out other people were stealing your content and making a profit off of it, would you say "more power to them -- the spreading of my content is good" even though people were being forced to pay for something that should have been free?

If you had written articles or text would you be happy if it were re-purposed anywhere and everwhere, without your ok? Including your name/email address? Is it even ok if someone publishes it on a web site with content you found offensive, against your own personal principles, or even illegal in nature? Would you be ok with your material, AND your name being in their publication?

What if you wrote a story and someone else took the liberty to illustrate it, and added illustrations that you found against your moral principles. Readers would assume you were also responsible for the art, perhaps, because your name was on the work itself. Would that be ok?

What if you wrote something specifically for ADULTS and someone "borrowed it" and placed it on an Internet site geared toward teens. Would that be ok?

When people toss around the "information should be free" argument and tell me I should be *happy* when my content is lifted and placed all over the net, they often assume it's all about money. I have NO intent of writing or compiling a book or making a living off of my writing. My writing isn't close to good enough to be worth the time to edit for that purpose. However, I have a right to choose where my content appears, and where my name appears. And for my writing to remain in its original form, the way I intended it.

Akasha



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875