Copyrights and stuff essay

[Alan Smallbone]

Well I think that ad got the point across... so to speak.....

Alan

[Faintandfuzzy]

January 2011 maybe.

Jim's email to the president was April 5, 2012.  Are you suggesting that the president's response is justified? 

[Isaac]

Jim's email to the president was April 5, 2012.  Are you suggesting that the president's response is justified?

I'm saying half-a-dozen unsolicited scam emails evade my spam filter every week - and I try to identify and delete them without opening them.

Do you even know if the person who replied has any knowledge of the original incident?

Alain Briot's essay informs us about the actions we can take to protect our images - it doesn't call on us to start a witch hunt.

[kencameron]

Plagiarism is not a copyright violation. Ideas cannot be copyrighted, neither can data--I can make a photography using hands for a world, what I can't do is setup my shot to exactly copy what Schewe has done (proving I had no knowledge of a previous work is another matter, but artist have been sued over derivative works--the Obama Hope poster is a resent example. A work is original in that it is not a copy, not that it happens to have the same subject and style of another--If I photograph Yosemite from Tunnel Lookout I am creating an original work. A derivative work, a work based on a previous work, must first secure the copyright of the original, but the creator of a derivative also has copyright over that expression (but never the original).

Coming late to this thread, what interests me most is the notion that ideas cannot be copyrighted and I am having trouble following what you are saying here. When you write that a "derivative work must first secure the copyright of the original" you seem to be contradicting your earlier statement that "ideas cannot be copyrighted". I am wondering whether any of Schewe's infringements were for completely different images of hands holding a globe and whether he would have any claim (whether moral or legal) against, say, an image of feet standing on a globe with the globe reproduced on the feet. A recent copyright case I heard about on the radio suggested that in some circumstances the concept for an image can be copyrighted, not just the image. I haven't been able to find it again so can't provide any more details - I think it was an Australian case but am not even sure of that. 

[Isaac]

... what interests me most is the notion that ideas cannot be copyrighted ...

"Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed."

The U.S. Copyright Office FAQ

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Alain Briot's essay informs us about the actions we can take to protect our images - it doesn't call on us to start a witch hunt.

You consider public pressure to observe the law a witch hunt?

[Isaac]

You consider public pressure to observe the law a witch hunt?

Which law do you say was broken by the reply to Jim Collum's April 5th 2012 unsolicited email?

[kencameron]

You consider public pressure to observe the law a witch hunt?

Nobody is defending the actions of the University in the original episode. But Alain took decisive and effective action at the time - and nobody here has the slightest idea about whether or not the University counselled the teacher or the student to try to prevent a repeat offence. It seems to me quite possible that it did. University administrations rarely have much compunction about coming down like a ton of bricks on teachers or students who embarrass them.  In these circumstances, I don't believe that indignantly emailing the University about the episode months later is of much use to anyone, and the University's quoted response to that email certainly can't be construed as defending its original actions.

[dreed]

Nobody is defending the actions of the University in the original episode. But Alain took decisive and effective action at the time - and nobody here has the slightest idea about whether or not the University counselled the teacher or the student to try to prevent a repeat offence. It seems to me quite possible that it did. University administrations rarely have much compunction about coming down like a ton of bricks on teachers or students who embarrass them.  In these circumstances, I don't believe that indignantly emailing the University about the episode months later is of much use to anyone, and the University's quoted response to that email certainly can't be construed as defending its original actions.

+1

[MikeMac]

I thought I would add a bit of light Friday humour to this copyright discussion. One solution, and it's a bit old, but it has legs:

Disney Blames Apple For Music Piracy

Vishniac writes "It looks like Disney CEO Michael Eisner is accusing Apple in part for fostering music piracy, particularly with its 'Rip, Mix, Burn' campaign. Testifying before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Eisner said that the ad suggests to people that 'they can create theft if they buy this computer.' Apple? iMac? Impossible."

One response -

Because oxygen facilitates computer piracy by allowing pirates to breathe, the DMCA will be outlawing this harmful gas as a copyright protection device.

"We're pretty sure there won't be any more piracy once we've removed all oxygen, destroyed the earth's atmosphere and made it completely unliveable for humans," a DMCA spokesman said. "The day we can go forward on this project will be a great day for corporate America."

Until all oxygen can be removed from the planet, all people caught breathing will be given Cease and Desist orders, and possibly incarcerated before they have a chance to run home and burn CDs.

During a discussion about this innovative new form of justice, George Bush stated that he is considering a similar plan to handle terrorists. "We will not be held hostile by terrorists, nor people who harbour terrorists, nor innocent civilians of countries that harbour terrorists, nor those chemical elements that terrorists need to survive."

"If you're breathing, you're either a terrorist, or you're aiding a terrorist by breating. Breathing is un-American." When reminded that the original question was about software piracy, Bush said that pirates shouldn't breathe either because it makes them a bigger threat on the high seas.

When asked if he himself had ever breathed, George Bush said that as all breathers were anti-American, and that he was most assuredly not anti-American, of course he has never breathed.

"Not like that hippy Clinton," one of Bush's entourage reportedly mentioned. "We all know that he inhaled."

Apparently, an informal polling of people with any intelligence on the subject said that removing oxygen to combat terrorism was not a good idea. When asked to comment on that poll, Bush laughed and said, "When has intelligence ever stopped Americans from doing what we need to do?"

From the Slashdot Archives http://apple.slashdot.org/story/02/03/04/1445216/disney-blames-apple-for-music-piracy