> Just a few thoughts in this context: section 106 of the U.S. copyright
law
> lists the following as an exclusive right in copyrighted works: the right
> to distribute copies or phonorecords of a copyright work to the public;"
> and, under section 101, "copies" are defined as "material objects, other
> than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or
later
> developed. . ..." Further, "publication" is defined in the law as
> "the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by
sale
> or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending" (there is
> also a reference to the offering to distribute copies or phonorecords).
> Since there is no "copy" (in the copyright sense of a material object)
that
> is made available to the public at an Internet site (physical objects are
> generally not known to move over wires or be transmitted via satellite),
the
> rights of public performance and/or display, not the distribution, usually
> come into play in this context.
No "copy"? Surely you jest. It is well-known that images can exist in electronic form. The data that is sent over networks is electronic, and is "copied" by the internet protocol to the client computer, where it resides in memory and/or is displayed on a monitor. Surely you don't claim that images on a computer screen don't quality for copyright protection because they don't have "physical" form? Of course, from a strict physics point of view, they DO have physical form. Photons and electrons are certainly physical in nature, having both mass and energy.
What about movies or music that can be downloaded? They are just as real as music or movies that are stored on a DVD or CD. The only difference is the medium upon which they are stored (hard drive or memory vs. disc).
And physical objects DO travel through wires. But even if they don't (i.e., radiowaves), this does NOT matter. If I capture a TV show that is on the "airwaves" and store and sell it, guess what? I have just made copies and violated copyright!
> Thus, from a copyright law perspective, it
> may be asserted that there is no "publication" of a copy of a copyrighted
> work when the work fixed in some tangible form in made available for
access
> at an Internet site.
Such an assertion will clearly fail.
> There may be a copy made of the work at the point of
> reception, but it is not the same copy that existed at the point of
> origination.
Define "same". A copy of a movie is different than the original. So what? The electronic copy (i.e., the information) traveling along the wires is the same that the computer uses to create the image.
> This has important ramifications for the application of other
> sections of the copyright law, e.g., section 109(a) (there was a copyright
> office proceeding in recent years re this section). Does this help?
No, it does NOT help. It misrepresents reality and the law.
-Bodi Received on Sat Dec 06 2003 - 06:45:47 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:51 GMT