Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers

From: Ｓｒｉｎ・Ｔｕａｒ (SrinTuar_at_example.net)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2004 01:55:52 GMT

Kevin Gowen wrote:
> I think that this rather takes things to a silly extreme. All works are
> derivative, but not hopelessly so, and US intellectual property law
> certainly takes this fact into account. For example, the inventive
> step/nonobvious requirement of patent law. In copyright law, something
> is copyrightable if it has only a "modicum of originality". It's a very
> low standard of originality.

With regard to patents, generally speaking you fill a form
with nonsense then the lawyers see it through. Nowadays the idea
is to keep any valuable information out of the patent and to be as
broad as possible in the claims.

> I don't know what you mean by "The way copyright is interpreted".

There were some cases not too long ago regarding sampling in music,
and even a case of a "similar" beat in some songs that all fell
on the side of the accuser, even though they were stretches at
best and well within the realm of fair use, in my non expert opinion.

I dont care so much about the "modicum of originality" requirement
as I do the extremely viral nature by which even a trivial similarity
can be extended into a violation.

> Well, in the US the concept of copyright was first encoded into law in
> 1789. I don't see anything communist about copyright law. I agree with
> KWW that it is rather anti-communist.
>

It was a subject of some debate, and some particular eloquence from
Thomas Jefferson. Furthermore, the US did proceed to ignore British
copyrights and patents for quite some time. (had it not itd probably
still be the "colonies") And hollywood cut its teeth dodging Edison
and his patent army out on the west coast. If anything, historically,
I'd say the US has a stronger base in infringement than enforcement.

>> Even the diametric alternative, anarchic renaissance style patron of the
>> arts funding for promoting what copyright does now, though less
>> efficient, is preferable to where we are heading.
>
>
> You might be surprised that goverment-granted monopolies to artists
> existed during the Renaissance.

Yes, kings granted favors, but they only existed within their own
demense. Unlike today, where copyrights from any nation are generally
enforced globally. The idea had to come from somewhere, after all.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: are poetry posted to google copyright protected?
    ... >>statements about copyright law were wrong, ... > Its a pretty tough job to claim originality etc. although ... Patent and copyright are two different species of intellectual property ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Re: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers
    ... >> I think that this rather takes things to a silly extreme. ... then there are the patent ... I'd have to read the cases to state an opinion. ... I don't see anything communist about copyright law. ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition
    ... Copyright law is focused on the preservation of intellectual property, ... Even though copyright law protects ... is to provide property-like rights protection to ideas and concepts. ... You don't copyright an engine design; you patent it. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)
  • Re: The USA bullies another small nation - again
    ... then you're in violation of copyright law. ... If I build a piano, patent it, and you then build pianos like mine ... they may not profit from trade (sale) of such devices. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Quantcast