copyright discussion

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

Who on this list beside myself wondered whether Praveen posted his message
on this list without consideration of why most of us support open source?
Or, did I miss something?

Rod

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JEETUN6 at aol.com [mailto:JEETUN6 at aol.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 3:55 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: copyright discussion
>
>
> I see that there has been some discussion and assertion about the powers
> bestowed by copyright. The focus has been on what it apparently
> allows the
> owner to prevent 'legitimate' users to do. I do not know which
> jurisdiction
> allows the copyright holder to prevent the public reading of a
> book. If such
> reading is a performance due to the artisitic input of the
> performer then the
> performer needs the consent of the copyright holder. And rightly
> so since can
> you imagine how much of an affront to your personhood would
> result if someone
> destroyed the essence of the meaning of your work through an unauthorised
> performance.
>
> Don't look at copyright as a restrictive thing. Think of all the cultural
> property that we enjoy by virtue of our IP laws. We experience
> the work of
> others that we would not have were it not for the power of IP.
> Don't think of
> IP as a noose around your neck but as a source of empowerment.
> And remember
> that examples can be provided of outrageous uses of IP for frivilous
> purposes, but that is not the fault of IP as such, but is the
> problem of the
> use by others of the system.
>
> I'd be interested to know what others make of this. Contrary to
> the norm, I
> am an IP lawyer who actually appreciates IP.
>
> Praveen Jeetun
>
>
> Copyright law empowers an author to restrict others from copying the
> > > > work.  A user therefore wants the license to allow the user to copy
> > > > the work.  In software terms, copying occurs when the user's hard
> > > > drive or RAM receives or records the software, for example.
> > >
> > >Copyright law *does* specify that such copying essential to use is not
> > >considered copying, and is not a reserved right. We've had this out on
> this
> > >list before.
> > >
> >
> > U.S. and a number of other countries' copyright law indeed permits as an
> > exception the limited ability of making of a copy in the utilization of
> > program on a machine. See section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Act. Laws of
> > many other countries do not provide such an explicit exception.
> Moreover,
> > most countries in the world do not provide as wide a fair use
> privilege as
> > the U.S or recognize implied license (or if so, an express
> license likely
> > trumps).
> >
> > ><SNIP>
> > >
> > >Copyright law does state that the copyright holder does not perforce
> > >reserve
> > >the right to "use" the work, however that may apply to the
> work. They may
> > >not forbid people to read a book, but they may forbid them to
> read it in
> > >public. They may not forbid people to *privately* perform a play, or
> > >rehearse it, but they may forbid them from performing in
> public. Get the
> > >idea.
> > >
> >
> > AFAIK in almost all countries making copies has no "public" limitation -
> > whether the copy is "private" or "public" is irrelevant.
> >
> > >IANAL, but I have had definite answers on these areas...
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3