a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Baron on 18 Apr 2010 12:39 David Brown Inscribed thus: > Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >> Walter Banks wrote: >> >>> That is why I made the comment about "protection with teeth" >>> it takes a long time for the material that is copyrighted to >>> be in the public domain. >> >> Actually, there's a strong on-going campaign by movie studios and >> music publishers, particularly in the USA, to change that "long time" >> into >> "forever". And if they ever get their wish, that'll be an outright >> disaster. > > Copyright in the USA (with other countries following on obediently) > gets extended every time Mickey Mouse is nearing the public domain. > Copyright lengths (and patent lengths) are already a disaster - it's > just a question of how much worse they can get. I don't really object > to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I > can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these > rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead. The simple answer would be that the copyright ceases on the death of the originator. That would certainly put a dent into Disney and Elvis... -- Best Regards: Baron.
From: Paul Carpenter on 18 Apr 2010 14:06 In article <hqfck1$jmo$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, baron.nospam(a)linuxmaniac.nospam.net says... > David Brown Inscribed thus: > > > Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > >> Walter Banks wrote: > >> > >>> That is why I made the comment about "protection with teeth" > >>> it takes a long time for the material that is copyrighted to > >>> be in the public domain. > >> > >> Actually, there's a strong on-going campaign by movie studios and > >> music publishers, particularly in the USA, to change that "long time" > >> into > >> "forever". And if they ever get their wish, that'll be an outright > >> disaster. > > > > Copyright in the USA (with other countries following on obediently) > > gets extended every time Mickey Mouse is nearing the public domain. > > Copyright lengths (and patent lengths) are already a disaster - it's > > just a question of how much worse they can get. I don't really object > > to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I > > can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these > > rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead. > > The simple answer would be that the copyright ceases on the death of the > originator. That would certainly put a dent into Disney and Elvis... I beleive the longest Copyright period by special Act of Parliament is for Peter Pan, all royalties have been set to go to Great Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London. The most recent Act set this for impertuity, except for school 'plays'. The song Happy Birthday had special copyright conditions as well. -- Paul Carpenter | paul(a)pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font <http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
From: Walter Banks on 18 Apr 2010 15:25 Hans-Bernhard Br�ker wrote: > Walter Banks wrote: > > > You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the > > same plot lines. > > If that were actually true, pulp fiction wouldn't exist. This is how the business plan for example romance novels works. The publisher owns the copyright for a particular story formula and hires authors to write novels using the formula. Copyrights keep others from duplicating the story lines. w.. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Walter Banks on 18 Apr 2010 15:37 Jon Kirwan wrote: > >You can violate the copyright of a > >photograph by using similar composition. > > Example, please. This sounds almost crazy to me and I'd like > to see just how "similar" you mean to suggest here. One that I am personally familiar with is the owner of a software games company had a very leather jacket that made him look like Indiana Jones and was successfully sued for having his own image on his product with a generic background of a central American jungle scene. Search for details on some of the Getty Museum copyright suites. Not all of them are exact images. Walter.. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Walter Banks on 18 Apr 2010 15:46
Jon Kirwan wrote: > Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it > is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I > guess it is good it worked out that way. Why should education and personal use be exempted, or for that matter why should library of congress be exempted? > Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit > illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown > to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions. > The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her > copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain' > her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that > was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most > other accounts, though, according to what I've read about > this case. A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte. > >There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at > >some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It > >is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and > >musical arrangements. > > But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__ > exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is > already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet > you provide your own contrary evidence. Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. The choice to exercise them is not always made. w.. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |