Re-using copyrighted code

[Mark Janssen]

> Mark, ever watched TV? Or gone to the movies? Or walked into a bookshop?
> Listened to the radio? All these things publish copyrighted work. It is
> utter nonsense that merely publishing something in public gives up the
> monopoly privileges granted by copyright.

That's not correct.  Keep in mind, that the law is for people:  there
is no automatic right to profit.  There certainly is no "right to
monopoly" (which you are absurdly arguing) on *anything* released to
the public.  If you want that monopoly *you* have to provide the means
to protect your IP.  You, sir, are being ridiculous and perhaps the
court along with you -- I'm just telling you what is correct.  That's
important.

A movie producer, publishes his/her work as soon as he/she puts it on
the market or otherwise releases it for public viewing.  That's just
the risk of doing business.  Fortunately, for them, its not easy to
make a verbatim copy of a film, in a theatre or otherwise.   But
copyright ensures that they get the credit for making the movie -- not
for profit of publishing it.

Now copyright includes the clause of "fair-use", so that means one can
make a copy of something if they aren't depriving the original creator
of legitimate gains.  If they are truly depriving the creator(s) of
legit gains, then they are in violation.  That's all the law should
support.  Don't think there is any law that can determine, once and
for all, what counts as "legitimate gains" and what violates "fair
use".   *You* have simply *sold out*.   "Legitimate gains" is
something the courts have to work out, on a case-by-case basis, but if
the movie producers are that worried about losing their gains, then
they can do the f-ing work and require movie goers to sign a simple
clause promising that they won't try to copy the movie (on concealed
cameras and such).

The issue beyond that, like code, is when it comes to digital media.
Because digital media allows verbatim copying and *tacitly removes*
*by its nature* any privilege or monopoly on public viewing.  That,
again, is just the risk of doing business of trying to "maximize your
market" for-profit.  Tough nuts asshole.  Things are quite clear
despite the FUD the media establishment would have you believe.  Stop
capitulating and selling out.

The only issue is whether you're depriving the original content
creator of *legitimate* gains.  That means many things:  how much is
that movie a derived product of popular culture, for example?  (Did
you get rewarded for participating in some small part of that?)  How
much would you have paid if was offered to you to set the price?

> Armchair lawyering is one thing, but please at least *try* to apply
> thought to these things before making ridiculous claims.

I have, and I assure you they are not ridiculous claims.  You have
just been lulled into complacency, like most everyone else.  That's
why people like the DeCSS folks are doing the rest of us a favor.
Shame on you for defending the status quo.

> If merely
> publishing something voided copyright monopoly,

Here you already shown your ignorance of the concept.  Copyright
protects your *authorship*, not your profit.  Perhaps you're confusing
patent law with copyright.

> then copyright would
> hardly encourage people to publish things they wished to monopolise,
> would it?

Why would they publish something they wished to monopolize?

>> The only issue after that is "fair use" and that includes running the
>> program (not merely copying the source).
>
> Running the program is irrelevant to copyright.

Technically, the law likely recognizes the distinction from
reproducing and "running" a program.  If I am a secretary and am
copying something for my boss, I'm not liable am I?  But if I derive
benefit from the program, I am, yes?

> Copyright does not grant
> the creator a monopoly of *running* the program.

No, perhaps you are getting hung up on the misnomer of calling it
"copyright" which would otherwise imply "right to copy".  Copyright,
could potentially grant the creator rights (like the DMCA) to who
*can* run the program.

>> Re-selling for money violates fair-use,
>
> The principle of re-sale have nothing to do with fair use.

Yes it does.  You are simply wrong.  The point of the law is fairness,
not supporting monopolies.

>> as does redistribution without
>> preserving credit assignment (unless they've naively waived those rights
>> away).
>
> One cannot *naively* waive away copyright monopoly privileges.

Why not?  That is what happens, generally speaking, when one releases
something to the "public domain", so what are you arguing?

> It
> requires an explicit and overt act to give away the rights granted.

That's what i just implied by saying "waived away their rights".

> One
> might deliberately publish your work under a permissive licence without
> realising that it is permissive, but that's not an act of naivety, it's
> an act of stupidity for not reading the licence and understanding it
> before publishing.

Well, that's what the court is for, to decide whether an act is
innocent, isn't it  :^) ?

> "Well Your Honour, I had heard that all the cool kids were using the GPL,
> so I copied the GPL into my source code. I didn't realise it had legal
> meaning."

That's right.  It's up to the world to educate youth about the law.
That they have not done so, is not the fault of the kids.

> When you listen to a song on the radio, do you know how they have a
> copyright announcer read out the copyright and explicitly list all the
> rights they keep after each and every song and advertisment?
>
> No, me neither. It doesn't happen. Because it's nonsense that you give up
> copyright by publishing.

You have not listened and do not understand copyright.

> Put the court in jeopardy huh. Oh my, that's a level of embarrassment I
> haven't seen for a long time.

Yes, that means you are putting the court in the middle where there is
no clear, fair ruling that can be made.

The rest of your commentary is not worth my effort until you
understand basic copyright.

-- 
MarkJ
Tacoma, Washington