If you think I'm stupid and lowly educated, why SIEMENS hired me then Punks? - Page 10

 

Well no, I don't think they can claim copyright on what we have written, but
I'm not a lawyer or whatever.  But we live in a county (USA) that is
attempting to make getting sick a crime so nothing would surprise me.  In
any case somewhere I have a copy of Alternator Secrets on a CD that is many
years old so I'm guessing it has not been republished by anyone (but I'll
check the fine print) and if it looks OK then I plan on sharing it with
whoever wants it.


This makes me wonder if someone published an original idea on Usenet
(probably happens fairly often in alt.energy.homepower) if it is
automatically copyrighted.  What's your opinion on this?  Or does writing
need to be filed with a bureaucracy before it is a valid copyright?

  -0700, Ulysses, therealulysses@yahoo.com wrote:


  Copyright subsists in a work the moment it is put
to fixed form.  IOW, it can't subsist in something
you say but as soon as you write it down or put it on
Usenet, that becomes fixed, and copyrights exist.


  As the copyright office puts it in Copyright Basics:

     Copyright Secured Automatically Upon Creation

     The way in which copyright protection is secured
     under the present law is frequently misunderstood.  
     No publication or registration or other action in
     the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright
     (see following NOTE). There are, however, certain
     definite advantages to registration.

  The way you've worded your question though, I think
you may be thinking of a different kind of protection.
An "idea" can't be copyrighted.  If you come up with
an idea for some kind of new method of cold fusion, and
scientists actually make that work, you don't have
any claim to it because it was your "idea" even if
those scientists give your post credit as the source of
the idea.  What is protected, are your words, not the
idea they convey.  

  If you take that idea to the point of an actual
working design, and get a patent, then that's a whole
other kettle of fish.

  For further reading that doesn't get tooo technical
Copyright Basics (text of a Copyright Office Circular 1):
http://twovoyagers.com/metamorphosis/copy_bas.txt

 

writing

Thanks.  Speaking of other fish I did patent searches a couple of times in
the past and just gave up.  The way I understood it it was up to me to be
certain my patent application didn't infringe on any other patent that
already existed and it seemd the only way to do that was to go to Washington
DC and do a search at the Patent Office and even then there could have been
a different heading that I could have overlooked.  Right now I'm pondering
about how to protect a "discovery."

And then there's the "recording from cable/satellite TV" dilemma.  This one
I don't get.  It's OK to record a movie or whatever to watch later but in
doing so it appears to me that it is a copyright violation.  The companies
that sell the TV service provide recording devices.  The way that makes
sense to me is that if I pay the satellite company and record a movie for my
personal viewing and don't charge anyone to watch it at my house and don't
make copies and sell them then I should not be breaking any law.  I would
think that the actors/producers etc would get their royalties from the
subscription payments paid to the distributors, i.e. cable and satellite
companies.

 Ulysses wrote:
<snip>


PMJI, *that* issue was brought up in congress some years ago.  Fred
Rogers (of children show fame) testified before congress that taping of
his show such that it could be played back at another time by parents
and children together seemed like a great idea to him.

This does get messy though with the whole 'fair use' definition.  A
recording for personal use (replay after the dinner dishes are done) is
one of those that is generally accepted uses.  So long as you don't
sell/distribute or make available to the public.  Just how long you keep
it or how many times you can replay it hasn't come up in court AFAIK.
But give it time, it might.

Another 'fair use' is the use of a work in satire.  Mad magazine
publishers went to court over their 'sing-along-with-mad' song lyrics
that were set to famous copyrighted songs (such as George M. Cohan's).
Courts ruled that even George M. Cohan does not have exclusive copyright
to iambic pentameter.

Using small clips for the purpose of scholarly or critical review is
another 'fair use'.  That's how movie critics can show short clips to
punctuate their movie reviews.  But schools/professors aren't supposed
to show an entire movie in class for 'scholarly' discussion without
permission of the copyright holder.

Defining and agreeing on what is 'fair use' is always on-going and can
get pretty twisted.

daestrom
P.S.  But I'm not a lawyer, so reader beware.

 

Washington

pondering

companies

I'm guessing that would be Mr. Rogers.  That would be an example of someone
who actually wants to entertain kids and is not being greedy.  He probably
already gets paid well and gets lots of fringe benefits.  I have a difficult
time feeling sorry for some actor/actress who made $10 million from a movie
and is upset about not getting 1.2 cents royalties from a DVD.  That would
be like an author sueing someone because they loaned a book he wrote to a
friend to read.  And then there are the LIBRARIES!  They should all be shut
down because they let people read the books for FREE!


Wow, I remember those from when I was a kid (long, long time ago) so they've
been doing it since about forever.  No doubt they did a satire of it with
Alfred E. Newman behind bars.


Many times when my kids were in summer school they showed a movie on DVD or
VHS and I'm pretty sure they didn't pay anyone.