#21
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 12:58:54 -0500, Ami Silberman wrote (in article ): Only within the "fair use" doctrine, which specifically states that you can't use the whole thing, or even large chunks. Um, that's not quite what the Copyright Act itself says unless it's been amended recently. Here's what the Copyright Office says about fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html You are, of course correct. "Specifically states" is too strong. However, in general, in academia, you can't get away with handing out entire chapters of in-print books (especially textbooks) to your class without first getting permission from the copyright holder -- complete books are pretty much right out (although my wife was able to get permission to distribute photocopies of an out-of-print book to one of her classes.) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
"Ami Silberman" wrote in message ... (although my wife was able to get permission to distribute photocopies of an out-of-print book to one of her classes.) I believe that is one of the two fundamental problems with the current system. If a book is out of print and there is no likelihood of it being reprinted anytime soon (not because the person wanting a copy guesses that to be so, but because the party with the rights says so), it should be legal to copy it, provided some regulated payment is made to a copyright clearance organization. The second problem lies with orphan copyrights- if the current copyright owner cannot be determined with a duly diligent search, then it should be legal to make a copy, provided that some regulated payment is made to a copyright clearance organization. The burden to keep track of the copyright owner should be on the owner- if a copyright changes ownership, that change should be registered within a very limited period of time, or it legally becomes orphan until registered. This would allow essentially dead works (i.e., in copyright but not accessible) to become accessible and possibly even generate revenue. A proviso could be added to registration to allow the copyright holder to block copying for out-of-print works, but why would you want to? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:04:47 -0500, Scott Hedrick wrote
(in article ): The burden to keep track of the copyright owner should be on the owner- if a copyright changes ownership, that change should be registered within a very limited period of time, or it legally becomes orphan until registered. And such a safe-harbor/re-registration system should be a VERY limited time. I'd vote for 90 days myself, which is longer than most time limits in many legal procedures, but I'd be okay with 180 days. -- "Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous "I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can." ~Todd Stuart Phillips www.angryherb.net |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... And such a safe-harbor/re-registration system should be a VERY limited time. I'd vote for 90 days myself, which is longer than most time limits in many legal procedures, but I'd be okay with 180 days. I was thinking in terms of a couple of years, but there's no good reason why it shouldn't be within 180 days- it's not as if it's real hard to register. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
Rand Simberg wrote: On 29 Aug 2006 10:33:42 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric Chomko" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Rand Simberg wrote: On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:47:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, OM made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 13:17:55 GMT, h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Can I republish this on my blog, with attribution? ...Depends. Do you *really* think you can condense that into two sentences and keep the same message? Why would I have to do that? You tend not to be able to help it... No, but you don't seem to be able to help posting idiocy. Only to idiots... |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
Rand Simberg wrote:
"Eric Chumpko" wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: OM wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: Can I republish this on my blog, with attribution? ...Depends. Do you *really* think you can condense that into two sentences and keep the same message? Why would I have to do that? You tend not to be able to help it... No, but you don't seem to be able to help posting idiocy. He can't help it, because he is a Chump. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
Scott M. Kozel wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: "Eric Chumpko" wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: OM wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: Can I republish this on my blog, with attribution? ...Depends. Do you *really* think you can condense that into two sentences and keep the same message? Why would I have to do that? You tend not to be able to help it... No, but you don't seem to be able to help posting idiocy. He can't help it, because he is a Chump. Is name calling all you have? Contribute if you have something even a good flame with some wit behind it, but adolescent name calling? C'mon, you can do better than that. Can't you? Perhaps not... Eric |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
In message , Scott Hedrick
writes "Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message .com... And such a safe-harbor/re-registration system should be a VERY limited time. I'd vote for 90 days myself, which is longer than most time limits in many legal procedures, but I'd be okay with 180 days. I was thinking in terms of a couple of years, but there's no good reason why it shouldn't be within 180 days- it's not as if it's real hard to register. That would violate the Berne convention, as the treaty prohibits requiring any kind of formality to establish or retain copyright on the general principal that copyright should not be lost accidentally or due to ignorance of a specific legal system. There are considerable practical advantages in having a consistent international legal framework that protects your copyright in foreign states and after a century this has largely been achieved. -- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Paul Dunbar To email me, use reply-to address |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
"Brett Paul Dunbar" wrote in message news That would violate the Berne convention, as the treaty prohibits requiring any kind of formality to establish or retain copyright on the general principal that copyright should not be lost accidentally or due to ignorance of a specific legal system. You misunderstand- we weren't saying that copyright would be lost without registration. The registration was to give notice of the most current copyright holder, to avoid a copyrighted item from becoming an orphan, thus making it impossible to legally get permission to copy. There's currently no process to get permission to copy or reprint something in copyright where the current holder cannot be found, essentially making such an item useless. There are thousands of items currently in copyright, but for which the current owner is unknown. The registration process we were describing involved items which have transferred ownership- if someone buys or otherwise knowingly obtains the copyright to an item, then they should be required to register that change of ownership, so as to allow the public to contact them if it is desired to duplicate an out-of-print item. One way to ensure this is done is to require registration within a limited period of time of the change of ownership. The penalties for not properly registering could be as drastic as losing the copyright, or it could be that the item is treated as an orphan if a duly diligent search cannot uncover the proper owner, and thus the item could be legally reprinted at the standard government-issue rate, with the royalties thus held in trust until the true owner comes forward. Thus, orphans can be legally reproduced even without the permission of the copyright holder, *unless* the current holder declares at the time of registration that the item is not to be reprinted without permission. Suitable rules would allow registration after the deadline, but would not allow such registration to cancel projects involving the no longer orphan item that were started during the time of orphanhood, nor would it allow a change in royalties for anything done before proper registration. If the copyright is considered valuable to the owner, then the owner should take a minimum step to protect it. It's not an attempt to get something for nothing, rather, it's an attempt to prevent something from becoming nothing simply because the owner cannot be found. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Pluto's OK
In message , Scott Hedrick
writes "Brett Paul Dunbar" wrote in message news That would violate the Berne convention, as the treaty prohibits requiring any kind of formality to establish or retain copyright on the general principal that copyright should not be lost accidentally or due to ignorance of a specific legal system. You misunderstand- we weren't saying that copyright would be lost without registration. The registration was to give notice of the most current copyright holder, to avoid a copyrighted item from becoming an orphan, thus making it impossible to legally get permission to copy. There's currently no process to get permission to copy or reprint something in copyright where the current holder cannot be found, essentially making such an item useless. There are thousands of items currently in copyright, but for which the current owner is unknown. The registration process we were describing involved items which have transferred ownership- if someone buys or otherwise knowingly obtains the copyright to an item, then they should be required to register that change of ownership, so as to allow the public to contact them if it is desired to duplicate an out-of-print item. One way to ensure this is done is to require registration within a limited period of time of the change of ownership. The penalties for not properly registering could be as drastic as losing the copyright, or it could be that the item is treated as an orphan if a duly diligent search cannot uncover the proper owner, and thus the item could be legally reprinted at the standard government-issue rate, with the royalties thus held in trust until the true owner comes forward. Thus, orphans can be legally reproduced even without the permission of the copyright holder, *unless* the current holder declares at the time of registration that the item is not to be reprinted without permission. Actually I didn't misunderstand. Virtually any penalties for failing to register would violate Berne, loss of copyright certainly would it is absolutely forbidden to impose any formalities for the retention of copyright. In practice if a publisher has made a good-faith effort to find the copyright holder and places a reasonable royalty in an escrow account they should be OK, as they have clearly demonstrated an intent to pay. Suitable rules would allow registration after the deadline, but would not allow such registration to cancel projects involving the no longer orphan item that were started during the time of orphanhood, nor would it allow a change in royalties for anything done before proper registration. If the copyright is considered valuable to the owner, then the owner should take a minimum step to protect it. It's not an attempt to get something for nothing, rather, it's an attempt to prevent something from becoming nothing simply because the owner cannot be found. It would breach the Berne convention. A simpler approach would be allowing an explicit good-faith defence, i.e. that a good faith attempt to locate the copyright holder has been made and reasonable royalties placed in escrow, that would be permissible. -- Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm Livejournal http://brett-dunbar.livejournal.com/ Brett Paul Dunbar To email me, use reply-to address |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pluto's New Moons Likely Born with Charon; Pluto May Even Have Rings(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 23rd 06 01:36 PM |
Pluto's New Moons Likely Born with Charon; Pluto May Even Have Rings(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | February 23rd 06 01:04 PM |
Pluto's Atmosphere Is Expanding, Researchers Say | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 9th 03 07:22 PM |
Pluto's Atmosphere Is Expanding, Researchers Say | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | July 9th 03 07:22 PM |
Pluto's Atmosphere Is Expanding, Researchers Say | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | July 9th 03 07:22 PM |