* Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN)
@ 2002-05-09 2:30 Alexandre E. Kopilovitch
2002-05-09 16:24 ` Darren New
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2002-05-09 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) 2002-05-09 2:30 More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch @ 2002-05-09 16:24 ` Darren New 2002-05-10 17:32 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Darren New @ 2002-05-09 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) "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%. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) 2002-05-09 16:24 ` Darren New @ 2002-05-10 17:32 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-10 18:22 ` More on copyright Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-11 6:13 ` More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) AG 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-10 17:32 ` Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-10 18:22 ` Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-10 19:12 ` Hyman Rosen 2002-05-11 12:31 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-11 6:13 ` More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) AG 1 sibling, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2002-05-10 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-10 18:22 ` More on copyright Jeffrey Carter @ 2002-05-10 19:12 ` Hyman Rosen 2002-05-11 3:26 ` Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-11 12:31 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Hyman Rosen @ 2002-05-10 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw) 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> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-10 19:12 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2002-05-11 3:26 ` Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-11 12:28 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2002-05-11 3:26 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-11 3:26 ` Jeffrey Carter @ 2002-05-11 12:28 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-10 18:22 ` More on copyright Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-10 19:12 ` Hyman Rosen @ 2002-05-11 12:31 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-13 14:13 ` Ted Dennison 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-11 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw) 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). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-11 12:31 ` Robert Dewar @ 2002-05-13 14:13 ` Ted Dennison 2002-05-13 14:24 ` Marin David Condic 2002-05-13 19:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Ted Dennison @ 2002-05-13 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw) 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) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-13 14:13 ` Ted Dennison @ 2002-05-13 14:24 ` Marin David Condic 2002-05-13 19:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Marin David Condic @ 2002-05-13 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw) "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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright 2002-05-13 14:13 ` Ted Dennison 2002-05-13 14:24 ` Marin David Condic @ 2002-05-13 19:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Jeffrey Carter @ 2002-05-13 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) 2002-05-10 17:32 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-10 18:22 ` More on copyright Jeffrey Carter @ 2002-05-11 6:13 ` AG 2002-05-11 6:23 ` tmoran 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: AG @ 2002-05-11 6:13 UTC (permalink / raw) "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... ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) 2002-05-11 6:13 ` More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) AG @ 2002-05-11 6:23 ` tmoran 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: tmoran @ 2002-05-11 6:23 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-05-13 19:23 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2002-05-09 2:30 More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) Alexandre E. Kopilovitch 2002-05-09 16:24 ` Darren New 2002-05-10 17:32 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-10 18:22 ` More on copyright Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-10 19:12 ` Hyman Rosen 2002-05-11 3:26 ` Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-11 12:28 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-11 12:31 ` Robert Dewar 2002-05-13 14:13 ` Ted Dennison 2002-05-13 14:24 ` Marin David Condic 2002-05-13 19:23 ` Jeffrey Carter 2002-05-11 6:13 ` More on copyright, (Re: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN) AG 2002-05-11 6:23 ` tmoran
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox