Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)

Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)

[Alexandre E. Kopilovitch]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:
>Example: if you create a version of Lion King with 
>overspoken comments on this Disney film,
>you are definitely violating Disney's copyright and
>they will come after you.

Just wonder, what will happen if I create my own comments on that film on
_separate_ cassete, then bundle it with legally obtained (bought) original
thing, and begin to sell such packages? If this may be considered as copyright
violation, then - at which step it occurs?


Alexander Kopilovitch                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)

[Darren New]

"Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote:
> Just wonder, what will happen if I create my own comments on that film on
> _separate_ cassete, then bundle it with legally obtained (bought) original
> thing, and begin to sell such packages? If this may be considered as copyright
> violation, then - at which step it occurs?

FWIW, I've seen a similar thing done in the US many time. You buy the
software (or whatever), mail it to the patch author, the patch author
applies the patch and mails it back to you. So that would probably be OK
in some sense.

-- 
Darren New 
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
   The 90/10 rule of toothpaste: the last 10% of 
         the tube lasts as long as the first 90%.

Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)

[Robert Dewar]

Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3CDAA2DA.4526E848@san.rr.com>...
> "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote:
> > Just wonder, what will happen if I create my own 
> > comments on that film on
> > _separate_ cassete, then bundle it with legally
> > obtained (bought) original
> > thing, and begin to sell such packages? If this may be 
> > considered as copyright
> > violation, then - at which step it occurs?

That sounds fine. As long as the two are separate, and your
tape is otherwise on secure grounds, no problem

 
> FWIW, I've seen a similar thing done in the US many time. 
> You buy the
> software (or whatever), mail it to the patch author, the 
> patch author
> applies the patch and mails it back to you. So that would 
> probably be OK
> in some sense.

Probably not. I have never heard of this being done, and it
would almost certainly be a copyright violation.

As an example, consider the company that was marketing
copies of Titanic with the "good parts" bleeped out of
the tape. They bought new tapes and modified them, but
the film company went after them on the grounds that
they were creating an unauthorized derived version. The
case settled, and the product was off the market, so
we don't have a judicial judgment here, but it was 
pretty clear that the company would have won.

Re: More on copyright

[Jeffrey Carter]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> As an example, consider the company that was marketing
> copies of Titanic with the "good parts" bleeped out of
> the tape. They bought new tapes and modified them, but
> the film company went after them on the grounds that
> they were creating an unauthorized derived version. The
> case settled, and the product was off the market, so
> we don't have a judicial judgment here, but it was
> pretty clear that the company would have won.

If you sell the derived work, that is clearly a violation. But if I take
my legal copy of Titanic and create a version with Jar Jar Binks edited
out for my personal enjoyment, that's clearly fair use. If I show my
version to my friends (without charging for it), that's fair use, too.
If I give copies of my version to my friends, that's less clear, but
probably fair use. If I have millions of friends and give them copies
via the internet, things get murky. But charging for it without
permission is always a violation.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"You couldn't catch clap in a brothel, silly English K...niggets."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: More on copyright

[Hyman Rosen]

Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> But if I take my legal copy of Titanic and create a version
 > with Jar Jar Binks edited out for my personal enjoyment,
 > that's clearly fair use.

Not clear at all. <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>

Re: More on copyright

[Jeffrey Carter]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> > But if I take my legal copy of Titanic and create a version
>  > with Jar Jar Binks edited out for my personal enjoyment,
>  > that's clearly fair use.
> 
> Not clear at all. <http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>

The right of individuals to make copies of copyrighted material for
their own personal non-commercial use has been established by the courts
as fair use. Some examples include recording TV shows and backing up
software.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I blow my nose on you."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: More on copyright

[Robert Dewar]

Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:<3CDC8F3F.16D71C00@acm.org>...
 
> The right of individuals to make copies of copyrighted material for
> their own personal non-commercial use has been established by the courts
> as fair use. Some examples include recording TV shows and backing up
> software.

No, that's misleading and wrong, as is your previous post. Please
don't invent.
It sounds like you have not even read the copyright statute. The right
to make
backup copies is NOT fair use, it is a statuory provision, see section
117 of the copyright code. This section at least is something everyone
should read,
see the previous message in the thread for a link to the statute.

The right to record TV shows on conventional VCR tapes for the purpose
of time shifting was indeed estanlished by the Sony case, but for
example, the right to record on digital apparatus that includes a
mechanism for skipping commercials is not clearly covered and is
currently being contested. The Sony
case decision is really quite limited, and does not for instance
clearly cover
making a VCR tape of a show for a friend. That might be fair use, but
I don't
think you can find a specific case that says it is.

Of course in practice things that individuals do on a sufficiently
small
scale does not get onto the radar screen (that does not mean it is
legal
or fair use, just that no one will bother to sue in practice, the most
you
might get is a cease and desist, for example if you put up a personal
web
site with some star trek images, Paramount will probably tell you to
close
down your site, but probably will not sue).

So if you bleep your own Titanic tape, who knows whether that is OK,
and probably who cares. But when you offer a service for bleeping
other people's
Titanic tapes, that's another matter. Similarly, MP3.COM provided a
service to
enable people to do something that lots of people assume is fair use
(ripping
a CD you own to put on your own MP3 player), but as a service, it was
found
illegal, with damages in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Fair use
is one
of the very few cases where doing something once can be legal, but
doing
it more than once may be illegal (I know of only one other example,
marriage!)

Fair use is a particularly tricky part of the law, as MP3.COM
discovered!

One general point to acquire from a thread like this is that copyright
law
is quite complex, and that you can't rely on common sense as to what
is
reasonable and what is not. Nor can you rely on other people's
pronouncements
since many of these come from limited knowledge, mixed in with such
common
sense :-)

This thread is of course not particularly relevant to Ada, but some
awareness
of copyright is important. That's particularly true when using freely
downloaded software. If you download a file that has a GPL notice in
it, this
does not mean you have a right to use it. It might be that the GPL
notice was
written by someone who did not have the rights to do so (as in the
event that
started this thread), or perhaps the software contravenes someone
elses patent
rights, in which case you can end up responsible. Nothing special
about freely
downloaded software here of course, the same is true for commercial
software,
although in that case you presumably have a formal license from some
company
which does take responsibility. Again, what you do for your own
private use
is unlikely to be a problem in practice, but as soon as you go outside
this
(e.g. by selling or widely distributing, or widely announcing on a
news group
etc), you are definitely raising the stakes.

Re: More on copyright

[Robert Dewar]

Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:<3CDC0FB7.8A1793BD@acm.org>...

> If you sell the derived work, that is clearly a violation. But if I take
> my legal copy of Titanic and create a version with Jar Jar Binks edited
> out for my personal enjoyment, that's clearly fair use.

Well your example is a bit peculiar, I don't think the owners of Titanic
can complain if you bleep out Jar Jar Binks from Titanic :-) :-)

But when anyone says "that's clearly fair use" I suggest you immediately
raise your skepticism shields to full strength, since such statements almost
always mean "I think that from a common sense point of view, this should
be fair use", rather than "the statute or court case bla makes this fair
use". Note that even a court case often creates a precedent only for the
circuit involved, unless it is appealed. Even Altai vs Computer Associates
is not the law of the land, but only of the particular circuit (though other
circuits do tend to follow this particular ruling, which incidentally I
strongly recommend all computer people read).

Re: More on copyright

[Ted Dennison]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0205110431.5383f80b@posting.google.com>...
> Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:<3CDC0FB7.8A1793BD@acm.org>...
> 
> > If you sell the derived work, that is clearly a violation. But if I take
> > my legal copy of Titanic and create a version with Jar Jar Binks edited
> > out for my personal enjoyment, that's clearly fair use.
> 
> Well your example is a bit peculiar, I don't think the owners of Titanic
> can complain if you bleep out Jar Jar Binks from Titanic :-) :-)

You might try to *add* him to Titanic for your personal
enjoyment...except that the idiot has gills, so he'd probably not be
bothered by the sinking at all.

Maybe he can't live in salt water, or he'd get hypotermia or
something...


-- 
T.E.D. 
Home     -  mailto:dennison@telepath.com (Yahoo: Ted_Dennison)
Homepage -  http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html (down)

Re: More on copyright

[Marin David Condic]

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:4519e058.0205130613.702d5c06@posting.google.com...
>
> Maybe he can't live in salt water, or he'd get hypotermia or
> something...
>
We can always hope....

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com

Re: More on copyright

[Jeffrey Carter]

Ted Dennison wrote:
> 
> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0205110431.5383f80b@posting.google.com>...
> > Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message news:<3CDC0FB7.8A1793BD@acm.org>...
> >
> > > If you sell the derived work, that is clearly a violation. But if I take
> > > my legal copy of Titanic and create a version with Jar Jar Binks edited
> > > out for my personal enjoyment, that's clearly fair use.
> >
> > Well your example is a bit peculiar, I don't think the owners of Titanic
> > can complain if you bleep out Jar Jar Binks from Titanic :-) :-)
> 
> You might try to *add* him to Titanic for your personal
> enjoyment...except that the idiot has gills, so he'd probably not be
> bothered by the sinking at all.
> 
> Maybe he can't live in salt water, or he'd get hypotermia or
> something...

OK, so I made a mistake. What I really meant was to take your copy of
Steer Wares Episode I The Phantom Menace and edit out the sex and nude
scenes with Kate Winslet.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time."
Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)

[AG]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0205100932.279fb402@posting.google.com...
> Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<3CDAA2DA.4526E848@san.rr.com>...
> > "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" wrote:
> > > Just wonder, what will happen if I create my own
> > > comments on that film on
> > > _separate_ cassete, then bundle it with legally
> > > obtained (bought) original
> > > thing, and begin to sell such packages? If this may be
> > > considered as copyright
> > > violation, then - at which step it occurs?
>
> That sounds fine. As long as the two are separate, and your
> tape is otherwise on secure grounds, no problem

Looks like the term "separate" is the key in this discussion.
However, what happens if the changes can't be separated?

Consider a case where someone owns a legaly obtained copy
of an ancient software (let's say RT11 or so for the sake of
argument) which has been extensively modified for the personal
use. Now, the person would like to give that extensively modified
version to a friend who's also interested in such relics. All the
original paperwork would be long since lost, the company that
created that is no more (for some years), it's buyer is about to
go out of existence too. So, how far do the checks extend?
Is a user who have no idea of the original owner of the work
(considering that the original owner no longer exist) required to
hire some private eyes just to trace who *may* or *may not*
own that piece of software at the moment? If anyone that is...

Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)

[tmoran]

> Is a user who have no idea of the original owner of the work
> (considering that the original owner no longer exist) required to
> hire some private eyes just to trace who *may* or *may not*
> own that piece of software at the moment? If anyone that is...
  That's why you should hire a lawyer.  He might tell you that to
be perfectly safe, you'll have to get the private eye to determine
that the owner, his heirs, his creditors, etc etc are all dead; or
you can take a big risk and not hire any private eye at all, or
you can select how much safety you want to pay for.  Part of a
lawyer's job is, in cases of legal uncertainty, to inform you about
risks of various courses of action.