ralphw@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (06/28/88)
In article <309@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes: > >In article <501@novavax.UUCP>, maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: >> [Stuff about which kinds of copyright violations upset authors] >> >> (As an aside, I believe most of us are committed in some way >> to the free flow of information; we feel that a culture which >> generates such a flow is a more open and civilized culture than one >> which does not. Thus, we may be caught on the point where the right >> to personal property conflicts with this more general principle that >> dissemination of information is a good thing.) > >I am committed to the free flow of information, or more specifically, of >*ideas*. Copyright law does not treat *ideas* as intellectual property. >An idea cannot be copyrighted; only a particular expression of an idea >can be. > >For example, Lotus Corp. has copyrighted a particular expression (the >1-2-3 program) of the *idea* of a spreadsheet program. Nonetheless, the >idea of a spreadsheet program is still freely and legally available to >anyone interested, and anyone who wishes can write a spreadsheet program >of his or her own. > >Thus, the enforcement of personal property rights by copyright law does >not conflict with the free flow of information. Well, I consider that copyright protects intellectual property rights rather than personal property rights. My stand on intellectual property rights is still evolving, so I won't say anything about them. I feel somehow that they have different characteristics, which makes it hard for me to feel that they deserve the same protections. Anyway, it does interfere with free flow, since I can't give a copy of something I have to someone else without worrying about copyright violation. There are bad precedents being set these days. Once you have legal support for a concept such as copyright, plus a surplus of lawyers, it encourages foolishness of the sort that Apple practiced when it filed against HP as well as MicroSoft, apparently because it New Wave has configurable widgets that let it 'look and feel' like a Mac. If 'look and feel' is copyrighteable, can 'functionality and performance' lawsuits be far behind? [Sorry, you can't write something that reads Appleworks format spreadsheet files, that would violate our 'functionality' copyright. BTW, you can't write in assembler code anymore, your benchmarks times are too close to ours. Rewrite it in pascal or something.] -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/01/88)
It is often said, "I don't like copyrights because they interfere with the free flow of information." On the surface, that seems true, but you may want to consider that it is also highly likely that actually, the reverse is true. If information can't be owned, that may be the greatest impediment to the creation and flow of *useful*, *valuable* information. If one could not own the rights to "Star Wars" and charge admission to see it, would there ever have been a "Star Wars" or anything like it? Clearly not, except it a complete totalitarian state where the government owns everything. So first, we must consider that the lack of ownership of intellectual property would likely only help the flow of information that *already* exists. But it's not even that simple. Much information that exists and flows today flows chiefly because somebody (the owner) has a motive to *make* it flow. In a propertyless world, much of the good "free" information would just sit there. Even today, with the incentives, cheap I.P. like books need promotion, distribution, mechanisms of review and resellers. Many very good books go nowhere if they aren't promoted. Much good software dies and goes nowhere because of bad marketing. Even many good shareware products only attain minor fame, if that. The fact is that even today we face information overload. There's just too much chaff out there for us to find the wheat. The most valuable I.P. needs the incentive of ownership to make somebody push it. After all this, there's a third factor, namely stagnation. Imagine the software world with the ownership of I.P. removed. Say you write a better operating system, or spreadsheet. Is it going to zoom out and replace what's there? Hah. If people didn't have to pay anything for Lotus 1-2-3, nobody would ever get the chance to give their product an edge through a lower price. When people are constantly paying money for new 1-2-3s as they expand, it's hard enough to get them to switch. If they can keep with the status quo for FREE, how easy will it be? The creations of your own mind are the truest form of personal property there is. Just because information *could* be unowned doesn't mean that it would be better if it were. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (07/02/88)
In article <1804@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >The creations of your own mind are the truest form of personal property >there is. Just because information *could* be unowned doesn't mean that it >would be better if it were. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 I believe a recent court ruling in Canada indicates that information cannot be owned. The case involved a union accused of stealing a list of confidential information on employees which it subsequently used in recruiting. The charges of theft were dismissed on the grounds that information could not be stolen, though had they taken the paper it was written on this would not have been the case. This is from memory of the newspaper article, so if someone has more concrete information please feel free to correct me. I think it is critical to make a distinction between ideas or information and the intellectual work that goes into creating a finished product. Copyright has always applied to 'works of art' and not raw ideas. Just because Brad's mind creates an idea is no reason to presume that no one else's mind is capable of creating a similar idea, and to accuse everyone of theft because they express an idea that someone may have expressed before is neither sensible nor practical. Ideas are and always should be communal entities. However, intellectual work to assemble a collection of ideas into a useful or artistic product needs to be rewarded. One needs a better definition of intellectual property that clearly recognizes when a collection of ideas is a true expression of individual work that is no longer communal but a distinct entity that can be owned. This is obviously very difficult, and the extreme positions of: any idea I have is my property, or no intellectual property can be owned by any individual are obviously both full of undesirable pitfalls. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/02/88)
In article <19709@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca (Ross Wetmore) writes: > I believe a recent court ruling in Canada indicates that information >cannot be owned. The case was quite specific. Information can be owned, that's what copyright is all about. Patent law even allows things you might call ideas to be owned. > >Just >because Brad's mind creates an idea is no reason to presume that no one >else's mind is capable of creating a similar idea, and to accuse everyone >of theft because they express an idea that someone may have expressed >before is neither sensible nor practical. Ideas are and always should >be communal entities. I have seen this point several times and I fail to understand the sense of it. If I state that one's own creations are the truest form of personal property, this applies to all independent creators. When has anything else been implied. If I develop an idea on my own, it is mine even if other people developed it previously by themselves. The moral principle is very clear. There is a legal problem when there is contention, and we need a system for deciding what is original and what is appropriated, but this is a legal/logistic problem, not a moral one. Perhaps what people bristle against is the way that patent law and, to some extent, broader copyright laws (such as character and look&feel copyrights) have come to mean that whoever is first must be the only original creator. This is a problem that should be dealt with, but it in no way invalidates the concept of ownership of the creations of one's own mind. It isn't even black and white today, since patents are often invalidated when the defendant shows parallel original development. The only thing the patent really changes is where the burden of proof lies. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (07/06/88)
There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.) Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.) -Barry Shein, Boston University (Datamation, July 1, 1988, p. 4)
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/09/88)
In article <23618@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation > (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in > this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary > damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered > to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.) > > Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a > copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.) > > -Barry Shein, Boston University > > (Datamation, July 1, 1988, p. 4) PC Week carried an article about this case a while back. UCLA was caught pirating an engineering design package. Their legal scum went to court, admitted that UCLA had pirated someone's commercial package, far exceeding the limits of the license, and then claimed (and the courts upheld them) that Federal copyright law didn't apply to the States! After reviewing the text of the 11th Amendment: XI Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. (Isn't it wonderful to have the Constitution on-line?) Now, this seems to be an utterly absurd reading of the 11th amendment -- it clearly states that federal courts shall have no jurisdiction for suits brought against a State by citizens "of another State" -- and this particular case involved a citizen of California suing the State of California. Keep in mind that this *would unquestionably* protect UCLA from being sued in federal court by Microsoft, based in Washington. Clayton E. Cramer
goodguy@cup.portal.com (07/10/88)
The Federal Copyright Office has ruled on the general situation concerning the 11th Amendment whether you can sue a state or a entity of a state for copyright infringement. They said like under the old Copyright Act you can sue a state or an entity of a state and that the 11th Amendment was not a complete immunity shield against copyright suits. So you could probably expect some reversals. In other words, since you could nail a state during the time of the old Copyright Act, there's no reason why you can't do so today under the current Copyright Act. There was just some confusion as to applicability under the current Act.
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (07/15/88)
In article <7239@cup.portal.com> goodguy@cup.portal.com writes: >The Federal Copyright Office has ruled on the general situation concerning >the 11th Amendment whether you can sue a state or a entity of a state for >copyright infringement. The "Federal Copyright Office"? Patents and trademarks are handled by the Patent Office, a unit of the Department of Commerce. Copyrights are handled by a unit of the Library of Congress. In any case, opinions of the relevant administrative agencies on constitutional issues are just that; opinions of administrative agencies. The courts must rule on such issues. John Nagle
mcb@tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (07/16/88)
In article <261@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In article <23618@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes: > > There's an interesting letter to the editor in the latest Datamation > > (from an attorney) which seems to indicate that State institutions (in > > this case specifically UCLA) are immune in most cases from monetary > > damages due to copyright infringements (although they can be ordered > > to stop whatever behavior is being complained about.) > > > > Apparently such things fall under the 11th Amendment (I don't have a > > copy of the Constitution handy, just summarizing.) > > [The 11th Amendment:] > XI. Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795. > > The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend > to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the > United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of > any foreign state. > > [Cramer:] > Now, this seems to be an utterly absurd reading of the 11th amendment -- > it clearly states that federal courts shall have no jurisdiction for suits > brought against a State by citizens "of another State" -- and this particular > case involved a citizen of California suing the State of California. There's a catch -- a BIG one -- in all of this, which is that while UCLA, as an instrumentality of the State of California, may not be subject to Federal jurisdiction, the *individuals* who are accused of copyright infringement certainly are (and this was part of the decision). So nobody's getting away with anything, though if the individual defendants are penniless or do not have sufficiently "deep pockets" a full economic recovery might not be possible. I read about this in one of the lawyer glossies, but it didn't have a case citation. If someone provides one, or at least the parties and the court and the date, I'd love to chase down the opinion and post salient portions. I never did any copyright litigation, and thus don't know the full ins and outs; one question that comes to my mind is why UCLA cannot be sued in (California) state court for the copyright claims, leaving aside removal and pendent-litigation issues. Or is there a rule that the Federal courts have sole subject matter jurisdiction over copyright cases? Or did the court interpret "the judicial power of the United States" to mean Federal law claims in state court? Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb / ames!lll-tis!mcb