3. other. Eg, the first amendment.
-----Original Message-----
From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2003 10:52 AM
To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Attribution is not required in public domain
materials
The reason that ideas are not protected is because?
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/>. Received on Tue Jun 17 2003 - 20:00:02 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:49 GMT