It's common to find that politicians don't understand copyright. Copyright, along with other "Intellectual Property", is a government-granted monopoly on some sort of intangible concept like a name, or idea, or representation of an idea. Trademarks protect names (and other distinguishing marks like sounds or the appearance of a mascot or logo) for businesses; patents protect ideas, and copyright protects the (artistic) expression of an idea.
But Robert Lutczyk, who sits on both the Oshawa and Durham Region councils, as proven that he doesn't understand the funamental difference between these things. He has "Copyrighted" the name of a local school and sued newspapers to prevent them from printing the name in their papers. If you think this is odd, consider that names can't be copyrighted. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong. So this coucillor needs to consult a lawyer before making an even bigger fool of himself.
The people at the school in question aren't sure what Mr. Lutczyk is trying to achieve with these hare-brained actions; maybe he wants the school to change its name or maybe he wants to extort money, who can tell? Mr. Lutczyk isn't talking. But I hope any newspaper that he sues takes the lawsuit to court and drags it out as much as possible. Copyright, trademarks and patent laws are already misused enough as it is, we don't need this jerk making things worse.
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Copyright. Show all posts
Money for Nothing
Charlie McCreevy, the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, has proposed extending copyright for recordings to 95 years. His reasoning:
I wish I could have income for ever based on the work I did in my teens or twenties. Oh wait: I can, in the form of saving for my retirement.
"If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late 1950s and 1960s will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years. These royalties are often their sole pension." People are living longer and 50 years of copyright protection no longer give lifetime income to artists who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties.
I wish I could have income for ever based on the work I did in my teens or twenties. Oh wait: I can, in the form of saving for my retirement.
A Strange Week in the Copyright World
Last week two interesting things happened in the realm of copyright. First the owner of the copyright of a particular piece of Free software advised the world that he was withdrawing that software from the GPL; he instructed people to delete any copies they have and remove the code from any systems that might have incorporated it.
I've wondered when we would see this particular event occur, since I recall the copyright laws being somewhat vague about this sort of thing. The problem is the owner of the copyright already gave people permission to use the source code under the terms of the GPL, which does not allow for revoking the license. The issue will need to be decided by a court which will determine whether a "gift" can be "ungiven". Some comments on Slashdot suggest that there may be something else at play here; such as a legal restriction which prevents the owner of the copyright from distributing the code under the GPL, and which would render the GPL invalid for this code. However the author did not indicate this and it remains to be seen what will happen.
The other odd thing that happened was that a US judge found that a cease-and-desist letter is copyrightable. That means that if a lawyer wants to bully you into doing something, and you want to tell the world that you are being bullied, you are not allowed to post a copy of the cease and desist letter on your website. In theory this would mean that you're not even allowed to make photocopies of the letter to pass around to your staff (assuming you have staff).
Frankly this is a frightening ruling. A cease and desist letter is clearly not a work of art, but rather a simple communication. The only effect that can be had from suppressing the publication of such a letter is that more lawyers will be able to bully people into getting in line with their clients' wishes. This is often what happens when someone's activities are embarrassing to a corporation. Suppressing this kind of speech can only have a chilling effect on freedom.
I've wondered when we would see this particular event occur, since I recall the copyright laws being somewhat vague about this sort of thing. The problem is the owner of the copyright already gave people permission to use the source code under the terms of the GPL, which does not allow for revoking the license. The issue will need to be decided by a court which will determine whether a "gift" can be "ungiven". Some comments on Slashdot suggest that there may be something else at play here; such as a legal restriction which prevents the owner of the copyright from distributing the code under the GPL, and which would render the GPL invalid for this code. However the author did not indicate this and it remains to be seen what will happen.
The other odd thing that happened was that a US judge found that a cease-and-desist letter is copyrightable. That means that if a lawyer wants to bully you into doing something, and you want to tell the world that you are being bullied, you are not allowed to post a copy of the cease and desist letter on your website. In theory this would mean that you're not even allowed to make photocopies of the letter to pass around to your staff (assuming you have staff).
Frankly this is a frightening ruling. A cease and desist letter is clearly not a work of art, but rather a simple communication. The only effect that can be had from suppressing the publication of such a letter is that more lawyers will be able to bully people into getting in line with their clients' wishes. This is often what happens when someone's activities are embarrassing to a corporation. Suppressing this kind of speech can only have a chilling effect on freedom.
Convict whines that he can't use Linux while on Probation
TorrentFreak has the story of a man (alias Sk0t who was convicted of copyright infringement, and who is now serving probation, who claims the Department of Justice is making him switch from Linux to Windows. The terms of his probation are that he can't use the Internet without special DOJ monitoring software, and this software only runs on Windows. "Why should I conform to them when I am consenting to the software… they should have software that conforms to me." Sk0t says. As expected, the knee-jerk reaction from the TorrentFreak website and many other sites is condemnation of this criminal and... no wait, it's the other way around. Many people seem to think the convict is right when he expects the government to have monitoring software that works on every single computer. Frankly that's ridiculous. I can name, without googling, over two dozen operating systems off the top of my head, and that's by compressing similar OSes together:
Most of these OSes are real commercial products with lots of users world-wide. Is it reasonable for the government to have convict-monitoring software for each of these? Never mind that Linux itself is available in dozens of versions, for dozens of platforms, and with countless variations of distributions. Heck, just supporting the Windows family would be a big enough task, and some commercial software companies can't keep up with them all, nevermind every OS out there.
The dumb thing about this is that the convict is crying that the government is infringing on his freedom of choice. Guess what Sk0t? YOU'RE A CONVICT! Your rights were abridged when the sentence was passed. And you can't tell me that being convicted of this crime is a complete surprise: you uploaded a major motion picture (Star Wars III) to the Internet before the theatrical release! That's bound to attract attention from Hollywood, and in this day and age people are getting caught, and sued or tried for copyright infringement, and everyone knows it. Yet Sk0t went ahead and uploaded it anyway, knowing full well the wrath he'd incur if caught. And now he's allowed to walk free, with certain conditions, but he's still not satisfied. Well, tough. STFU and next time don't commit a crime.
Windows NT/2000/XP/Visa
Windows 64-bit
Windows 95/98/ME
Windows 3.1
Dos
Windows NT for Aplha, PPC, MIPS
Linux (hundreds of variants)
OS/2
Mac OS classic
Mac OS X
NextStep
BeOS
Atheos
QNX
Windows 64-bit
Windows 95/98/ME
Windows 3.1
Dos
Windows NT for Aplha, PPC, MIPS
Linux (hundreds of variants)
OS/2
Mac OS classic
Mac OS X
NextStep
BeOS
Atheos
QNX
FreeBSD
NetBSD
OpenBSD
Solaris
Aix
HP-UX
Irix
Sco OpenUnix
Sco Xenix
Sco Unixware
System/390
CP/M
NetBSD
OpenBSD
Solaris
Aix
HP-UX
Irix
Sco OpenUnix
Sco Xenix
Sco Unixware
System/390
CP/M
Most of these OSes are real commercial products with lots of users world-wide. Is it reasonable for the government to have convict-monitoring software for each of these? Never mind that Linux itself is available in dozens of versions, for dozens of platforms, and with countless variations of distributions. Heck, just supporting the Windows family would be a big enough task, and some commercial software companies can't keep up with them all, nevermind every OS out there.
The dumb thing about this is that the convict is crying that the government is infringing on his freedom of choice. Guess what Sk0t? YOU'RE A CONVICT! Your rights were abridged when the sentence was passed. And you can't tell me that being convicted of this crime is a complete surprise: you uploaded a major motion picture (Star Wars III) to the Internet before the theatrical release! That's bound to attract attention from Hollywood, and in this day and age people are getting caught, and sued or tried for copyright infringement, and everyone knows it. Yet Sk0t went ahead and uploaded it anyway, knowing full well the wrath he'd incur if caught. And now he's allowed to walk free, with certain conditions, but he's still not satisfied. Well, tough. STFU and next time don't commit a crime.
Movie industry proves they're all assholes
I don't put profanity into writing lightly but the movie industry has proven that they are completely out of touch with reality once again. A 19 year-old woman has been arrested and charged with movie piracy after filming a 20 second clip of "Transformers" so she could show it to her younger brother, because she thought seeing the clip would make him want to see the movie. That's when the theatre manager saw her, called the police, and had her charged with recording a movie in the theatre.
You read that correctly: a fan of a movie recorded a tiny clip to promote the movie (which is normally permissible under fair-use laws), and is now facing a year of prison and possible fines, along with a lifetime ban from that particular theatre. This situation couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, unless of course she's actually convicted.
The most arrogant comment in the article is the one from Kendrick Macdowell, general counsel for the Washington-based National Association of Theatre Owners, who says there has to be a "zero-tolerance policy at the theatre level.... We cannot educate theatre managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theatre managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." Obviously either the theatre managers or the National Association of Theatre Owners is low on brain-cells. I'll spell it out for them: copying an entire movie = bad. Taping a 20 second clip = not copyright infringement. It's not rocket science.
I urge anyone in Washington to contact the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common 12 theatre and tell the manager that you will not visit this theatre unless he drops the charges and apologizes to his customer.
You read that correctly: a fan of a movie recorded a tiny clip to promote the movie (which is normally permissible under fair-use laws), and is now facing a year of prison and possible fines, along with a lifetime ban from that particular theatre. This situation couldn't possibly get more ridiculous, unless of course she's actually convicted.
The most arrogant comment in the article is the one from Kendrick Macdowell, general counsel for the Washington-based National Association of Theatre Owners, who says there has to be a "zero-tolerance policy at the theatre level.... We cannot educate theatre managers to be judges and juries in what is acceptable," he said. "Theatre managers cannot distinguish between good and bad stealing." Obviously either the theatre managers or the National Association of Theatre Owners is low on brain-cells. I'll spell it out for them: copying an entire movie = bad. Taping a 20 second clip = not copyright infringement. It's not rocket science.
I urge anyone in Washington to contact the Regal Cinemas Ballston Common 12 theatre and tell the manager that you will not visit this theatre unless he drops the charges and apologizes to his customer.
Copyright law and Guitar tab
It seems the music industry is trying to shut down their fans again. The National Music Publishers Association has sent a letter to the guitartabs.com site asking them to stop distributing guitar tablature. Guitar Tabs is a site where users can download tab files; I understand that generally these files are written by people who listen to a song, work out the notes on a guitar, then submit it to guitartabs.com for others to enjoy. Unfortunately for the music fans, this activity violates copyright law.
Copyright law, at least in Canada (I have read the Copyright Act, but IANAL) specifically defines things like making guitar tab as making a copy. Copyright doesn't depend on the means of reproduction; even if the new work is different but very similar to the original work, and is derived from the original work, it doesn't excuse the copyright obligations of the "copier". If you read a novel, and write it out by hand, you are not allowed to distribute that copy, even if you make spelling mistakes or re-word a few sentences. Heck, you are not even allowed to translate a work into another language. You are not allowed to make a movie out of a copyrighted book nor sing a song with a similar tune as another song, even if you change the lyrics. To my knowledge these basic rules are in all copyright laws passed in any countries that signed the Berne Convention.
Some people confuse the issue further when they consider the copyright of the author of the derived work. The derived work may be subject to the "copier's" copyright as well; consider a translation of one book into another language: The author of the original book owns the copyright for that book, but not the copyright for the translated book (assuming it was translated without authorization of the author). The copyright for the translation rests with the translator, however, since it is derived from a copyrighted work, the translator can not distribute it without permission from the original author. The author does not have permission to dictate when the translation will be distributed; the author can only dictate when it will NOT be distributed. When the copyright of the original work expires, the translator is free to distribute his work, and the this version of the work enjoys full copyright protection. Similarly, the authors of the guitar tablature can prevent others from copying their work, however the artists who wrote the songs in question (or, whoever owns the copyright) can prevent the distribution of tab.
Should the NMPA stop guitartabs.com from distributing tabs? Well, the NMPA makes their money selling sheet music and tab. Under copyright law they hold the keys to this particular source of revenue, and a site like guitartabs.com presumably prevents them from making money on certain tab sheets. If you believe in copyright, then it follows that guitartabs is blatantly denying the NMPA of its due revenue. Sorry tab fans.
Note: This post is meant to explain copyright law. It is not meant as an endorsement or condemnation of this law.
Copyright law, at least in Canada (I have read the Copyright Act, but IANAL) specifically defines things like making guitar tab as making a copy. Copyright doesn't depend on the means of reproduction; even if the new work is different but very similar to the original work, and is derived from the original work, it doesn't excuse the copyright obligations of the "copier". If you read a novel, and write it out by hand, you are not allowed to distribute that copy, even if you make spelling mistakes or re-word a few sentences. Heck, you are not even allowed to translate a work into another language. You are not allowed to make a movie out of a copyrighted book nor sing a song with a similar tune as another song, even if you change the lyrics. To my knowledge these basic rules are in all copyright laws passed in any countries that signed the Berne Convention.
Some people confuse the issue further when they consider the copyright of the author of the derived work. The derived work may be subject to the "copier's" copyright as well; consider a translation of one book into another language: The author of the original book owns the copyright for that book, but not the copyright for the translated book (assuming it was translated without authorization of the author). The copyright for the translation rests with the translator, however, since it is derived from a copyrighted work, the translator can not distribute it without permission from the original author. The author does not have permission to dictate when the translation will be distributed; the author can only dictate when it will NOT be distributed. When the copyright of the original work expires, the translator is free to distribute his work, and the this version of the work enjoys full copyright protection. Similarly, the authors of the guitar tablature can prevent others from copying their work, however the artists who wrote the songs in question (or, whoever owns the copyright) can prevent the distribution of tab.
Should the NMPA stop guitartabs.com from distributing tabs? Well, the NMPA makes their money selling sheet music and tab. Under copyright law they hold the keys to this particular source of revenue, and a site like guitartabs.com presumably prevents them from making money on certain tab sheets. If you believe in copyright, then it follows that guitartabs is blatantly denying the NMPA of its due revenue. Sorry tab fans.
Note: This post is meant to explain copyright law. It is not meant as an endorsement or condemnation of this law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)