Re: IP, forwarded posts, and copyright infringement
[Jim sent me the below message directly without any indication that it was also sent to the list. But from past experience, I know better. Another example of not-quite-adequate Choatian social norms.] Anyway, Jim is conflating physical control over an instantiation of IP with the rights conferred by IP law. If someone copies Microsoft Word (or a Tom Clancy novel) onto a CDROM and gives it to me, I am not liable. -Declan At 11:36 AM 1/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
(Hint: U.S. copyright law does not make mere possession or archiving an offense. Try distribution, performance, etc.)
Hint: WRONG.
Simply possessing a paperback book that has had its cover removed as a sign of 'destroyed' status is in fact a crime. Used book stores that have them in stock can be charged accordingly.
The primary distinction USED TO BE whether there was intent to make money off the act. Now the simple desire to want to make copies and perhaps even share them is under review. It's not the copy of the book anymore but rather simple access to the ideas (which is what copyright isn't about).
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[Jim sent me the below message directly without any indication that it was also sent to the list. But from past experience, I know better. Another example of not-quite-adequate Choatian social norms.]
Anyway, Jim is conflating physical control over an instantiation of IP with the rights conferred by IP law. If someone copies Microsoft Word (or a Tom Clancy novel) onto a CDROM and gives it to me, I am not liable.
You are if you take it knowingly (can you take something unknowingly?) and especially if with the intent to defraud the copyright holder of their rights. In the case of the Tom Clancy novel, there's usually a clause about no electronic storage so if you had such a novel then yes possession would in fact be a crime. I would have thought the .mp3 controversy would have made this point clear. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
You are if you take it knowingly (can you take something unknowingly?) and especially if with the intent to defraud the copyright holder of their rights.
Oh, certainly there are such cases, such as if you're part of the infringement. But as a general rule, my point is valid, and I'd challenge Choate to provide a cite to the U.S. code that suggests otherwise. -Declan
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
You are if you take it knowingly (can you take something unknowingly?) and especially if with the intent to defraud the copyright holder of their rights.
Interestingly, copyright and patent differ on 'unknowingly taking'. If (as was recently mentioned) someone dupes some content and gives you a copy, you are not responsible -the copier was violating copyright, not you. The copier could 'unknowingly take' by simply mistaking the content for public domain. But patents are different. If sell you a chip, and you build a board with it, and Joe build a system with your board, and that chip turns out to be infringing a patent, my chip, your board, Joe's system, everything that uses the infringing work is legal toast. (And could be stopped at the border if imported, which happened to an American FPGA vendor who uses TSMC.) This is a major practical problem e.g., in the selling of 'cores'. So anyway, its definately possible to 'unknowingly take' IP.
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, David Honig wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
You are if you take it knowingly (can you take something unknowingly?) and especially if with the intent to defraud the copyright holder of their rights.
Interestingly, copyright and patent differ on 'unknowingly taking'. If (as was recently mentioned) someone dupes some content and gives you a copy, you are not responsible -the copier was violating copyright, not you. The copier could 'unknowingly take' by simply mistaking the content for public domain.
Yes, you are responsible. Being in possession of a illegaly copied movie, software, .mp3, CD, book, etc. is in fact a crime. Copyright is the default, not public domain. So you're saying that if somebody takes something with intent to steal (even though) it isn't really stealable then they aren't guilty? I suspect a jury will not accept the 'I thought it was free' defence.
But patents are different. If sell you a chip, and you build a board with it, and Joe build a system with your board, and that chip turns out to be infringing a patent, my chip, your board, Joe's system, everything that uses the infringing work is legal toast. (And could be stopped at the border if imported, which happened to an American FPGA vendor who uses TSMC.) This is a major practical problem e.g., in the selling of 'cores'.
How is this different, it's still possession (or use) of property illegaly. Simple ignorance isn't a defence.
So anyway, its definately possible to 'unknowingly take' IP.
No it isn't. You either develop it independently or you don't. You can however take it without malice, which is what you're talking about. Not the same thing at all. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 06:15:27PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
Yes, you are responsible. Being in possession of a illegaly copied movie, software, .mp3, CD, book, etc. is in fact a crime.
Cite, please, to the relevant section of federal criminal law? Oh, wait. You're just a blowhard. Nevermind. -Declan
At 6:34 PM -0500 1/10/01, David Honig wrote:
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:22:10PM -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
You are if you take it knowingly (can you take something unknowingly?) and especially if with the intent to defraud the copyright holder of their rights.
Interestingly, copyright and patent differ on 'unknowingly taking'. If (as was recently mentioned) someone dupes some content and gives you a copy, you are not responsible -the copier was violating copyright, not you. The copier could 'unknowingly take' by simply mistaking the content for public domain.
But patents are different. If sell you a chip, and you build a board with it, and Joe build a system with your board, and that chip turns out to be infringing a patent, my chip, your board, Joe's system, everything that uses the infringing work is legal toast. (And could be stopped at the border if imported, which happened to an American FPGA vendor who uses TSMC.) This is a major practical problem e.g., in the selling of 'cores'.
So anyway, its definately possible to 'unknowingly take' IP.
As this isn't the Cyberia-L list, thankfully, I won't try to dig up legal cites (even those accessible with Google).. Item: There _have_ been cases where copyrighted material resulted in "infringing works" becoming, in your words, "toast." For example, cases where entire runs of about-to-be-distributed or still-on-bookseller's-shelves books were recalled because the books contained the IP of others. Item: Even more often reported are the cases where videos are seized because of copyright violations. The fact that the "recipient" of the material didn't "know" the violations had occurred does not let him off the hook. A video distributor with 10,000 bootleg copies of "The Matrix" in his warehouses is not off the hook even if he didn't "know" the videos were pirated. If he really didn't know, he probably won't face prosecution, but he definitely faces the "toast" situation with regard to having the videos seized. Item: In many ways, the case with _patent_ violations is actually _looser_. For example, consider the case of the Kodak instant photography system. Courts found that the Kodak product violated Polaroid's patents. Kodak withdrew the product line and offered compensation to those who bought the Kodak system. Did stores with inventories of the Kodak camera face seizure of their infringing inventory in the same way that stores with inventories of bootleg copies of a video face seizure? No. Nor were those who had purchased the Kodak system told that they were in possession of stolen property. I'm not disputing the general tenor of your comments about copyright vs. patent law, just noting some interesting examples where the opposite seems to apply, where violations of copyright law face stronger sanctions than violators of patent law do. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
At 12:54 PM -0500 1/10/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
[Jim sent me the below message directly without any indication that it was also sent to the list. But from past experience, I know better. Another example of not-quite-adequate Choatian social norms.]
Anyway, Jim is conflating physical control over an instantiation of IP with the rights conferred by IP law. If someone copies Microsoft Word (or a Tom Clancy novel) onto a CDROM and gives it to me, I am not liable.
-Declan
At 11:36 AM 1/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
(Hint: U.S. copyright law does not make mere possession or archiving an offense. Try distribution, performance, etc.)
Hint: WRONG.
Simply possessing a paperback book that has had its cover removed as a sign of 'destroyed' status is in fact a crime. Used book stores that have them in stock can be charged accordingly.
So, if I tear the cover off of a paperback book that I legally own (bought, for example), Choate's claim is that this "is in fact a crime"? Gee, so much for scienter. So much for proof of actual criminal action. So much for tort law. Jim, please call the police, as I have just torn the cover off of a book I own. Worse, I just cut the tags off of a mattress. Call before I commit more crimes. Fucking retard. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Tim May wrote:
So, if I tear the cover off of a paperback book that I legally own (bought, for example), Choate's claim is that this "is in fact a crime"?
No, Tim. That isn't. If a store, who takes it on concession, has not sold it by the time it's display date expires the cover is torn off. The book is entered into the accounting system as 'destroyed' and it goes on from there. The key point being, at least to this conversation, is that no royalty on the book was ever paid. It was legally bound for the trash heap. So, possession is in effect possession of stolen property. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:36 AM 1/10/01 -0600, Jim Choate replied to Declan's >> > post:
(Hint: U.S. copyright law does not make mere possession or archiving an offense. Try distribution, performance, etc.)
Hint: WRONG.
Simply possessing a paperback book that has had its cover removed as a sign of 'destroyed' status is in fact a crime. Used book stores that have them in stock can be charged accordingly.
At 12:54 PM 1/10/01 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Anyway, Jim is conflating physical control over an instantiation of IP with the rights conferred by IP law. If someone copies Microsoft Word (or a Tom Clancy novel) onto a CDROM and gives it to me, I am not liable.
The paperback book example has nothing to do with intellectual property - it's about real property, the dead-tree portion of the book that's left when the bookstore mails the front cover back to the distributor for credit and claims the rest of the book has been destroyed. Somebody, I think Jim, incorrectly said this was an issue about royalties, which would be IP-related, but it's not - royalties are what the publisher pays the author when the book gets sold, while this is about what the bookstore does or doesn't pay the wholesaler when the book does or doesn't get sold. (I'm not sure which legal rules cover it - fraud, tort, conversion, maybe theft by the store, so possibly possession of stolen property by the purchaser or other recipient.) However, that doesn't mean Declan's correct :-) Before the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, he probably would have been, but the DMCA is a vague ill-defined mess of evil intentions that are increasingly being expanded (or at least people are attempting to expand them; how much holds up in court remains to be seen.) The DeCSS cases are a relatively direct use. The Scientology claims against E-Bay for using electronic tools (their auction system) to violate their intellectual property constraints (by helping ex-Scientologists sell used E-Meters to people who haven't paid the Church of Scientology for their trade secret religious materials) is a way blatant stretch, but seem to have been enough to intimidate E-Bay. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
participants (5)
-
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Tim May