Semi-OT: Congress about to limit artists' copyright rights

[Luke -Jr]

On Sunday 01 June 2008, Leo Mauler wrote:
> --- On Sat, 5/31/08, Hal Duston <hald at kc.rr.com> wrote:
> > There appears to be a serious misunderstanding of the
> > difference between copyrights and patents.  If I implement
> > an idea and it is found to be sufficiently similiar to a
> > pre-existing patent, then I am in violation of that patent
> > even if I am unware of its existence.  If I create a work
> > that is found to be similar to a pre-existing copyrighted
> > work, my ignorance of that work is a perfect defense, as I
> > am not violating the other creator's copyright even if my
> > created work is found to be identical.
>
> I suspect that your hypothesis here isn't accurate.  If "my ignorance of
> that other work is a perfect defense...even if my created work is found to
> be identical", then there is nothing illegal with taking an existing work,
> erasing all traces of the previous author, making some superficial changes,
> and then passing off the entire work as my own.  Moreover, if there was no
> penalty for this behavior, I would also be allowed to make money off "my
> own song single 'Imagine (This)', hauntingly identical to John Lennon's
> 'Imagine', though mine has the background tuba", despite current copyright
> law not permitting this behavior.

If you could prove you created 'Imagine (This)' without any foreknowledge of 
John Lennon's, then you would not be found to have violated contract. Since 
this is not criminal court, you don't have the "innocent until proven guilty" 
rule, and the similarities would testify to the fact that you most likely 
*had* knowledge of Lennon's song. From here, you would need to prove 
otherwise. Once you've done that, your song is yours.