"OOH, OOH, I know this one!" He said, hand stretched
to the sky from the school desk teetering on two legs.
"3. other"
Elaboration: Patents cover new, useful, non-obvious
ideas. All other ideas are deemed not worthy of
protection in our current legal framework.
Do I get a gold star today!
keith
[There was a Mr. Carter/Horshack joke there, but I
didn't want to ruffle any screen writer feathers.]
- sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com wrote:
>
> The reason that ideas are not protected is because?
> 1. big corporations what the ideas
> 2. the ideas are humans and human issue is not
> subject to copyright
> 3. other
> sterling
>
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi
> <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I fail to see how a requirement to attribute a
> work to its author violates
> > > anybody's free speech, any more than the
> requirement that one identify
> > > oneself to a police officer does. You take the
> right of free speech too far
> > > if you give others the right to plagerize. And
> note that plagiarism does
> > > NOT require an existing copyright. One can
> plagerize from the public
> > > domain.
> >
> > You are wandering into a totally different
> territory when you
> > try to make an analogy between requirement of
> attribution and
> > requirement to reveal one's name to a police
> officer. We have
> > laws on libel, slander, forgery, and perjury.
> None of them has
> > any affect on the freedoms of speech and press
> because they
> > are very limited in term of scope and time and
> focus on the
> > consequences of the deceitful actions, not the
> deceitful actions
> > itself.
> >
> > Later in your post, you said that ideas are not
> protected and
> > therefore, they do not require attribution. But,
> plagiarism
> > is not limited to fixed copyrightable expressions
> but also
> > extend to all ideas. In a way, the free speech
> allows one
> > to plagiarize by copying ides from other sources
> without
> > attribution.
> >
> >
> > > If they take a substantial amount of the text,
> then YES. Copyright has
> > > nothing at all to do with it. The issue is that
> one should recognize the
> > > sources of one's ideas when those sources are
> known. That not only is fair
> > > and ethical, but it BROADENS the practice of
> free speech because it allows
> > > others to investigate further. The advancement
> of knowledge is not
> > > furthered by hiding the sources of one's works.
> Quite the opposite is true.
> > > By listing sources, one helps others check and
> improve one's works.
> >
> > You are mixing ethics with legality. Is copyright
> infringement
> > the same as stealing?
> >
> >
> > > The issue isn't necessarily one of lawsuits.
> The concept does not need to
> > > be legally enforced, but it should be ethically
> enforced. For example,
> > > historians that have "borrowed" from others
> without attribution and
> > > subsequently have been outed aren't necessarily
> sued, but their works become
> > > suspect, as well they should. Thus, there is
> peer pressure to attribute the
> > > works of others. Self-policing can work. The
> problem is that you appear to
> > > be saying that it is PROPER to not attribute.
> That I cannot agree with. A
> > > student who turns in a paper copied from a
> Shakespeare play should get a
> > > failing grade if proper attribution is not
> given. That is the proper
> > > response.
> >
> > Again, you are mixing ethics with legality. Note
> that I said
> > in other post that attribution is nice but it
> should be always
> > optional, meaning that not providing attribution
> should not
> > be made illegal.
> >
> >
> > > "Ideas" are not protected. I serously doubt
> that she copied, verbatin or
> > > even closely, the works of an identifiable other
> person. Hence, no
> > > attribution is necessary. You are distorting
> the issue of when attribution
> > > is needed.
> >
> > The following are also not protected:
> >
> > 1. Unfixed expressions.
> >
> > 2. Fixed uncopyrightable expressions.
> >
> > 3. Fixed copyrightable expressions that
> cannot be
> > copyrighted due to Merger Doctrine.
> >
> > 4. Fixed copyrightable expressions whose
> copyrights have expired.
> >
> > By your logic, if I copy any from category #4, I
> do not need to
> > provide attribution because they are not
> protected. This contradicts
> > your previous statement saying that copying a
> large portion of a
> > public domain material must have a proper
> attribution.
> >
> >
> > > > We must not let authors gain perpetual
> copyright through the
> > > > guise of trademark.
> > >
> > > Nobody suggested this be done.
> >
> > Your post seems to say otherwise.
> >
> >
> > Joseph Pietro Riolo
> > <riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
> > http://www.boycottcopyright.com
> >
> > Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all
> knowledge of 1923
> > in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their
> copyright
> > owners' prisons: 5,681
> >
> > Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions
> in this
> > post in the public domain.
> >
> >
> >
>
#############################################################
> > This message is sent to you because you are
> subscribed to
> > the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> > To unsubscribe, E-mail to:
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> > To postpone your subscription, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> > Send administrative queries to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
> >
> > Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
> <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
> >
>
>
>
#############################################################
> This message is sent to you because you are
> subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
> To unsubscribe, E-mail to:
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
> To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
> To postpone your subscription, E-mail to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
> Send administrative queries to
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
> Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
<https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Jun 17 2003 - 20:00:02 GMT