Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 20th Sep 2010 22:22 UTC
Legal Big Content, which already owns the Obama administration, is at it again - I guess mandatory monitoring software to scan every computer's content isn't enough. A bi-partisan proposed bill would allow US federal courts to issue injunctions that would order domain registrars or registries to cease resolving the domain name of a copyright infringing website.
Thread beginning with comment 441974
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: A Strange Thought
by raboof on Tue 21st Sep 2010 21:46 UTC in reply to "A Strange Thought"
raboof
Member since:
2005-07-24

you sit back and wait for the US Government to accidentally infringe on your copyright

No you don't.

Unlike patents, copyright only covers actually copying other people's work. Independently discovering/writing a text is never copyright infringement - even if the text is identical to an existing copyrighted text.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: A Strange Thought
by Neolander on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 05:42 in reply to "RE: A Strange Thought"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

No you don't.

Unlike patents, copyright only covers actually copying other people's work. Independently discovering/writing a text is never copyright infringement - even if the text is identical to an existing copyrighted text.

That's theory.

If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text, you will have a hard time proving in court that it was written independently. In practice, I think proving this is impossible.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: A Strange Thought
by raboof on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 06:49 in reply to "RE[2]: A Strange Thought"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

"copyright only covers actually copying other people's work. Independently discovering/writing a text is never copyright infringement - even if the text is identical to an existing copyrighted text.

That's theory.

If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text, you will have a hard time proving in court that it was written independently. In practice, I think proving this is impossible.
"

That's theory.

In almost all practical cases, and certainly in Brendan's case above, it's actually pretty obvious.

Edited 2010-09-22 06:50 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: A Strange Thought
by lemur2 on Wed 22nd Sep 2010 07:27 in reply to "RE[2]: A Strange Thought"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text


If you make a text which is a word-perfect clone of a copyrighted text, I think it is a fair assumption that you copied it.

If you however make a text which is almost entirely different from a copyrighted text, but semantically it parses out to mean effectively the same thing, I think it is an even fairer assumption that you didn't copy it, but rather that you just independently came up with the same ideas.

Edited 2010-09-22 07:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2